McCain and Palin disagree on environmental issues

At least the George W Bush administration was consistent within itself. But with the new Republican ticket, we are faced with the prospect of a US president who is against drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge paired to a VP who staunchly supports it, and says the two will just have to "agree to disagree".

What does that mean? And will she be equally conciliatory about their opposite views regarding the causes of climate change? It's difficult to follow McCain's mercurial views, but he backs the scientific consensus that industrial activities are causing climate change and has supported cap and trade. Palin, on the other hand acknowledges that global warming is happening, but is "not one who would attribute it to being man-made".

When couples agree to disagree, it's generally a way of closing a discussion, shelving it, putting it away, forgetting about it entirely. But this is crunch-time for the climate. In Copenhagen in 2009, world leaders will have to make arguably the most important environmental decision of their respective terms in office.

For the new US government, it will be their first great foray into international climate negotiations. After years of supreme isolationism, finally broken by the Bush administration's astonishing performance at UN climate talks last December, the world will be looking to the US. What - what - will happen if the country's leaders have "agreed to disagree"?

"When it comes to environmental issues, the only difference between George W Bush and Sarah Palin is lipstick," said Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, a local green group.

I disagree. Bush may have had his arm twisted, but he did concede that humans are causing climate change. It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009. It may have caused him to shun UN discussions on climate change, but his major emitters meetings did create a forum for China and the US to discuss their positions on climate at the highest possible level.

The difference between Bush and Palin is not lipstick. It's much more than that. Palin makes Bush look like a forward-thinking tree-hugger. To elect her would be to take four steps back after it took Bush eight years to take two steps forward.

The vacancy at the White House requires someone who can deal with short-term crises and has the ideals to form a realistic long-term vision. With all due respect, Palin does not fit the bill. "Agreeing to disagree" probably makes her a very pleasant person to spend time with. It does not make her a vice-president.