"Climate silence" in the 2012 Presidential Election

The Presidential election is a week from tomorrow, and I'm writing this from my house in DC with Hurricane Sandy advancing outside my window. A hurricane that is probably partially caused by the one-degree increase in sea temperatures since the 1970s. So it seemed like the perfect time to ponder something that has confounded me about the campaigns of both Romney and Obama, particularly during the debates: the lack of discussion of climate change as a problem the US needs to address.

source: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-hurricane-sandy-washington-20121029,0,3333190.story

Watching the second Presidential debate, I was thrown by the part of the debate devoted to energy. While I recognize that during an election climate change might not be enough of a hot-button issue that a candidate is about to include it as a major campaign issue, I had assumed that, in 2012, climate change was enough of a known global issue among voters that it would be awkward and backwards-seeming to not even acknowledge it in a conversation about energy. Instead, both Obama and Romney promised to enhance US oil and coal production. Which, seen through the lens of climate change policy, is a very confusing goal.

Some questions:

Is climate change usually discussed in Presidential debates? Interestingly, the "climate silence" of this election is somewhat of a departure from the recent past, as this is the first time since 1988 that climate change has not been mentioned in the series of Presidential debates. During the 1988 Presidential debates, the candidates were asked about climate change for the first time, following a famous Congressional testimony on climate change by James Hansen.

Why aren't Romney or Obama discussing it more? While Obama does mention climate change in public statements and speeches, both candidates failed to mention in any of the three debates. For one, candidates probably don't feel that they should give a lot of airtime to the issue because the economy is the issue that polls as the first priority to voters. Even when questioned about energy directly in the debates, Romney and Obama both seem to want to ensure that they will protect coal-related jobs and keep the cost of gas down during a recession. As has been documented in several news articles, neither candidate is willing to acknowledge the negative side effects of fossil fuel use when such a sentiment could suggest loss of jobs or rising household costs.

There is something surreal, though, about living in the era of climate change, and hearing candidates try and one up each other to be more of "friend to coal." As Will Oremus reported in Slate, during the debate, "when Romney accused Obama of not being 'Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal,' the president defended his record of opening public lands for oil drilling and fired back that Romney was no great friend of coal either."

While I don't want to diminish the economic concerns of those whose employment is based on fossil fuel production, or those for whom an increase in gas prices would present a major obstacle, left unaddressed climate change will likely have very significant economic consequences, especially for the poor. As the United Nations Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded regarding the impact of climate change, "It is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit."