2012 Presidential Election is making history, but for all the wrong reasons.

Katie Buda

Both candidates agree that humans are at least partly responsible for global warming, but neither have made any plans to stop it, nor have they even discussed the topic.

After a year of record-breaking temperatures, bipolar weather patterns, a drought and ongoing arctic-ice melts, it is shocking that Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama don’t see this as a big enough issue to confront.

After exchanging roughly 50,000 words in the presidential debates and braving the three moderators, both candidates have yet to say the words climate change, greenhouse gas, carbon fuel emissions or global warming.

For Romney, the only issue on his agenda is creating jobs and repairing the stagnant economy.

Few would protest that the weakened economy is a minor issue in Washington; however, there’s one enormous issue Romney has failed to address or at least address properly.

On NBC last month, Romney outraged environmental activists saying, “I’m not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet,” during an interview on Meet the Press.

Americans shouldn’t be so quick to criticize Romney and his remarks. Just because Mitt Romney says something, doesn’t mean he means it.

The Republican presidential hopeful then added, “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.”

America can have both a healthy economy and a healthy planet.

According to a Gallup poll from March 30, 2012, 55 percent of Americans worry a great deal or a fair amount about the effects of global warming.

Results from another Gallup poll published on March 21, 2012 showed that 84 percent of Democrats, 80 percent of Independents and 73 percent of Republicans thought the weather was warmer than usual. Of the groups polled, 43 percent of Democrats, 28 percent of Independents and 19 percent of Republicans believe the rise in temperature is due to global warming.

The rest of the world thinks this issue needs to be confronted, and other countries have already made significant steps toward reducing their consumption of energy.

China, Japan, Australia and South Korea have all invested heavily in clean energy technology.

Romney and the Republican party have frequently attacked Obama’s strong environmental regulations for gas, oil and coal, as well as his investment in green energy.

In the Wednesday, Oct. 3 debate, Romney attempted to touch on fossil fuels and the environment; unfortunately he used a term that does not exist: cleaner oil.

Compared to Romney, Obama looks great. However, to say he’s better than Romney is not saying much.

President Obama’s global warming faux pa is one of neglect, while Romney doesn’t think global warming is an American problem.

In August 2011 when Hurricane Irene hit, Obama addressed victims but failed to acknowledge the storm was intensified by oceanic warming, the rise in sea level and extreme precipitation in the northeast. All of these factors are connected to global warming.

In August of 2012 during the nationwide drought, Obama declared, “The month of July was the warmest month on record — warmer than any other month since we began keeping track more than a century ago,” but made no connection to global warming.

It’s starting to sound like both parties just want a Michigan beach day in November.

Despite his neglect of global warming over his current presidential term, Obama’s response to Hurricane Sandy is hopeful.

This month the President told Iowans that “carbon pollution is connected to the droughts we’ve seen.” He also mentioned his shock that the debates have not had the subject of climate change up for discussion, naming it a “huge contrast” between him and his running mate.

Voters should take the issue of global warming into account when they enter the polls on Election Day. If you want a president who will ignore one of the biggest issues of the twenty-first century, vote for Mitt Romney.

A vote for President Barack Obama will ensure that the next four years will benefit and help reduce our impact on the environment.