As I've argued before (1), I don't put this one on Obama, or Romney, or the moderators. It's just not there in American discourse, be that thanks to dominant industry interests or media bias - or lack of care. Still, climate skeptics in the US (&UK) get significantly more space in newspapers than other countries (2). . .
America doesn't care enough - that's how I feel most of the time. I've worked on the polls and called lots of people, even in the 'liberal northeast', and it's just not there. Especially with the lingering economic situation, the dominant perception and message has been that climate is legitimate to take a back seat.
Blaming the candidates, especially in this case, is I think fairly well off base. Perhaps it's time to consider bringing in a third party to US politics, rather than two major parties, and everything being funneled into 'the most generalized issue'?
As a geopolitical analyst, I also have to say that I'm amazed that a large part of the voting block, and the 'representative' parties of the US, see foreign policy as a non-issue this election. Again, I'm not thrilled with Obama and Romney arguing over who is the best bed of coal - one of the biggest take-aways from energy discussion from the debates. But they are just pitching to their market - and that market is decided by Americans one way or the other. So they (we) need to do something about that; complaining about the candidates in this case dodges the inherent responsibility that the US citizenry has.
America was founded on the idea that people should demand a responsive government. Either they have it and they don't care about climate change, or they don't have a it and don't want to work for it.
1 No Talk Of Climate Change at the Presidential Debates? The US Has A Long Way To Go…
2 Newspapers in UK and US give climate sceptics most column inches