Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Climate Silence in the US election

You would think that the Frankenstorm the looked from above like the storms portrayed in The Day After Tomorrow (although it didn't quite plunge the planet into an ice age) and killed hundreds in the Americas while causing $50bn of damage would have prompted at least one presidential candidate to comment on the need to tackle climate change.

Maybe they thought that the topic was too sensitive? Perhaps they felt it safer to stick to discussing safer topics like criminalising women who have abortions and chanting USA! USA! at rallies?

Maybe they are worried that the voters might be upset with the recovery still being undertaken? Maybe they don't want a discussion that leads to the conclusion that the average American is consuming and polluting so much that the Earth needs another 17 planets to cope with their effects?

No, I suspect that it is primarily due to Wall Street who back the Democrats not wanting to upset the status quo and the oil industry behind the Republicans who don't want to give up their oil profits. Quelle difference?

The US is sterile and boring while consuming vast quantities of money. They have an electoral system that is even more undemocratic that the UK's first past the post! They have a system that complete excluded any other party and arrests 3rd party candidates when they try to get a look in.

Let's hope The Green Party's Jill Stein is able to get a respectable vote share even if it hurts the democrat's vote. Climate change is stamping its mark, people and politicians should take note.

No comments: