Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 ways they differ on climate change

As recently as 2008, presidential candidates openly sparred over their own plans for dealing with climate change. This year it's such a touchy topic that both sides prefer instead to talk about energy policy – a kind of proxy. Here are four ways the candidates differ.

4. War on coal?

David J. Phillip/AP/File
Exhaust rises from smokestacks in front of piles of coal at NRG Energy's W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station in Thompsons, Texas, in this March 16, 2011, file photo.

GOP critics charge that the Obama administration's new regulations on carbon emissions amounts to a "war on coal" – an especially sensitive issue in Midwestern battleground states in the runup to November elections. Weeks of advertising by the Republican National Committee and Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp. blamed Obama for electricity cost increases in the state and for mining industry layoffs.

“If you don't believe in coal, if you don't believe in energy independence for America, just say it,” Romney said, according to The Columbus Dispatch newspaper. "If you believe the whole answer for our energy needs is wind and solar, then say that."

In response, the Obama campaign cites gains in coal production under this administration. In ads in coal-producing parts of Ohio, Obama's campaign touted rising coal production there during his presidency, Energy & Environment Daily reported.

"Here in Ohio, coal production has increased 7 percent since Obama took office," the ad says, according to E&E Daily. "Ohio coal jobs are up 10 percent. Obama has also made one of America's largest investments ever in clean-coal technology."

"It's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science," Obama told Rolling Stone magazine in April. "I suspect that over the next six months, [climate change] is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way."

Obama's efforts not to be painted as an über-regulator killing jobs has drawn uncharacteristic criticism from greens. First, the Obama campaign added a clean coal section to its website in the spring. Last month, an Obama ad that criticized Romney for flip flopping on greenhouse-gas emissions when he said as governor that a particular coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts "kills people."

"So when it comes to coal, ask yourself, who's being honest and who's playing politics?" the Obama ad said, according to Energy and Environment Daily.

But that won a brickbat from environment-booster Mother Jones magazine, which called the Obama ad "a new low, dinging Mitt Romney for remarking that coal 'kills people.' "

For a full list of stories about how Romney and Obama differ on the issues, click here.

4 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.