All the endless commentary on what has happened in the two presidential debates hasn't stopped some people from noticing what hasn't happened. Surely climate change is the single biggest issue that has not come up. Partly, I guess, neither Jim Lehrer nor Martha Raddatz nor Candy Crowley deemed it worthy of a direct question. But the candidates have proven themselves adept at talking about what they want to talk about, the specific questions put to them be damned.
Romney, I think, doesn't want to talk about climate change because his most ardent suporters think it's a hoax, and kow-towing to them would remind more moderate voters of why they regard him with suspicion. Meanwhile, Obama doesn't want to talk about it because he hasn't done anything about it. But the first step to doing something about it would be to begin talking about it. I don't see why a political campaign is a bad place for that. If Romney does not want to have to say that he is opposed to addressing the problem, then it seems it would be in Obama's interest to force him to do that. It would fit into a story about the Republican party--it's antipathy to science in general, including even evolution, which it cannot abide to be taught in school science class--that "independent voters" might believe. (After all, it's true.)
Yet even when asked about energy policy, in a debate performance for which he has received generally high marks, Obama maintained his silence about climate change. Instead, he accused Romney of being insufficiently pro-coal. On one side, it's Drill baby drill, and, on the other, evident embarrassment about making the case that we can no longer ignore the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels.
