What canidate for President would do the most to combat Global Warming?

Question

I was wondering who you thought would do the best job at addressing climate change and promoting alternative energy sources?

Answer 1

Any of the Democratic nominees.For Republicans global warming does not matter.

Answer 2

Al is not a candidate. What is the deal with all the Al Gore answers! Doesn't anyone understand the question or some you are on crack or something?. Senator Dodd would do the most to combat Global Warming. He has introduce a bill concerning a carbon tax. Most of the Democrats would do a better job at addressing global warming than the republicans.. Most of the republicans except a few still believe the world is flat. It only shows their level of science education is at grade level. Also, big business got them by the neck so they could care less about the environment even if there is no one here to enjoy it

Answer 3

Sadly to say but presidents in general don't really care about Global Warming, but instead polls and popularity. They will use Global Warming to get votes, but as 2000 proved, people (esp. older folks) just don't care about Global Warming. They care about their job security and whether they have enough money for the next 1-2 years to support their families, and since they're not going to see the results of Global Warming, they just don't care!!! Jobs, money to feed the family, etc are more important to them.

In the end, no candidate will really help Global Warming. Al Gore tried, lost, got pissed and has repeatedly said how disappointed he was at the government and its inability to do anything.

Lastly, this is a gross generalization, but independents and democrats tend to have a slightly better environmental track records than the republicans, since the republicans really try to address issues like economy/etc (short term financial gains) over intangible issues that will not be seen any time soon (long term environmental destructions). So, vote accordingly-- do you want to feed your family at the cost of environment, or save the earth but starve to death?

Answer 4

www.ontheissues.org for a more comprehensive list.

Bill Richardson on Energy & Oil : Oct 26, 2007
Carbon auction: use market to make emitter pay for emissions

Chris Dodd on Energy & Oil : Jul 23, 2007
Impose corporate carbon tax; need price incentives for GHGs

John Cox on Energy & Oil : Jul 2, 2007
Support domestic drilling; oppose Kyoto Treaty

Dennis Kucinich on Energy & Oil : Jun 20, 2007
Twin threats of global warring and global warming

Bill Richardson on Energy & Oil : Jun 19, 2007
Bush won't follow the Kyoto treaty, but my state does

John Edwards on Energy & Oil : Jun 19, 2007
80% greenhouse emissions reductions by the year 2050

Hillary Clinton on Energy & Oil : Jun 8, 2007
Extensive funding into alternative energy

Rudy Giuliani on Energy & Oil : Jun 3, 2007
Accept global warming & work toward energy independence

Mitt Romney on Energy & Oil : Jun 3, 2007
No-regrets policy: biofuel, nuclear power, drill ANWR

Tom Tancredo on Energy & Oil : May 15, 2007
Global warming could be from humans, or could be nature

Chris Dodd on Energy & Oil : May 6, 2007
Carbon tax of $50B/year to make alternatives competitive

Duncan Hunter on Energy & Oil : May 3, 2007
Take taxes down to zero for the alternative energy sources
Global warming & the need to be energy-independent gives us a great opportunity.

Fred Thompson on Energy & Oil : Apr 13, 2007
Solar system is warming, not earth

Rudy Giuliani on Energy & Oil : Mar 26, 2007
No new energy tax; focus on alternatives instead

Mike Huckabee on Energy & Oil : Jan 4, 2007
Kyoto was a mistake, but "Earth in the Balance" is not
You do not have to hug a tree to appreciate one.

Answer 5

Let's get this straight. There is NOTHING that can significantly be done about current climate change.

Certain vested interests have obscured the real truth about the causes of the warming and are trying to say it is because of burning fossil fuels etc. This is because they want further control of people and control of how resources are used.

The additional CO2 that mankind has added to the atmosphere is a very minor factor, and eliminating it would not have much impact.

The real warming is happening because of increased energy from space - increased solar energy over the last couple of decades, increased solar wind affecting the ozone layer and letting in more ultraviolet and cosmic rays...

There is nothing to be done except to learn to cope with it.

If you don't believe me, check out the planet Mars - its polar caps are melting too.

This is just part of the clyclical warming and cooling that has gone on for untold thousands of years. About a thousand years ago the Vikings came to North America and landed around where Newfoundland and Labrador are today - generally cold and forbidding places inhabited by the Inuit and hardy fishermen.

Back when the Vikings came they found lush semi-tropical forests and named it "Vineland".

So Al Gore and his movie are mostly propaganda from the world's elites with a goal of passing new laws, restricting & rationing fuels, and pushing the agenda for a single World Government.

Answer 6

First, hopefully none. Second, it doesn't matter. Congress will never go along with any Kyoto type treaty. The best thing any Presidential candidate can do is push for nuclear energy, then once that is achieved, attempt other reforms. But following Kyoto would damage the US economy and do nothing for the environment.

Answer 7

I do not think the GOP candidates will make much meaningful headway in this area. Unfortunately, candidates from both the parties don't seem to be forcefully addressing this issue because they are far too consumed with proving who spends the most time in church.

Answer 8

Al Gore.

Answer 9

According to over 19,000 Scientist, Geologist, and the like, who signed the Oregon Petition, there is no evidence to support that Global Warming is caused by humans. So why even bother voting for a candidate who is gonna do the most for something that is a bunch of hype just so he can get votes.

Answer 10

Let's be honest. Humans are not going to stop burning coal and other fossil fuels for energy anytime soon. not only that but any changes in sea levels that are a threat to human life will not happen in one day and likely won't effect any person living today. People in the future will simply have to adapt to their new coastlines. There is no doubt that the warming is man caused but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. The world is going to warm and instead of fearing it we shoud start planning for it so that future generations aren't burdened with the full cost of our love of dirty energy.