Oct. 17--During the presidential debate last week, when Al Gore and George W. Bush discussed global warming, it marked the first time in the campaign that the controversial and problematic issue has taken center stage -- albeit for just a couple of minutes.

Scientists and others have been dismayed at how little attention global warming has garnered during the campaign, given the major role that the next president will have in setting U.S. energy and pollution policies.

But no one is much surprised that the complex, dispute-laden issue of the warming of the Earth's atmosphere hasn't been on the top of either candidate's agenda.

Political observers note that polls show voters in key battleground states don't care about the issue. They also say there's no political advantage to either candidate making carbon dioxide emissions an issue. And they say that the media doesn't seem to care much about global warming either.

During last week's debate, in response to a question from the moderator asking for their positions on global warming, Gore said he believed human activity was contributing to the so-called greenhouse effect and that the United States must act now to develop alternative energy sources. Bush said the issue of global warming needs more study.

The dialogue provided fleeting comfort to scientists and environmentalists who have spent much of the past decade clamoring for fossil-fuel emission reductions.

Other countries -- Germany, Holland and Britain, for example -- are taking broad steps to cut carbon dioxide releases by 50 percent to 80 percent over the next 50 years. But the matter has yet to resonate en masse with American voters and their leaders.

The concept behind global warming is simple. Scientists generally agree that the massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other heavy gases pumped into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution have created a warmth-retaining cocoon -- or greenhouse -- around the Earth. Emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and coal-fired electric power plants are, by far, the greatest greenhouse gas contributors.

Most scientists believe the planet's increasing temperature is to blame for melting polar ice caps and glaciers. The temperature rise is causing unpredictable changes to the global climate, they add.

But politicians, business leaders and scientists around the world have been at odds over what, if anything, to do about all this.

What disturbs those concerned about global warming is the apparent lack of leadership on the issue from Gore and Bush since the summer party conventions.

The reason for the silence isn't much of a mystery, political observers say. Bush has a lot to lose by bringing up the issue because of his environmental record in Texas. Gore, worried about being tagged an environmental extremist, risks alienating moderates in crucial states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

"For both Gore and Bush, it is the story that they have little to gain and a lot to lose," said William Lowry a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in environmental politics.

Gore, for the most part, has the environmental vote sewn up. The biggest risk he runs in not talking about global warming is that he could lose some votes to Ralph Nader, Lowry said.

Or perhaps Gore is simply playing the pragmatic politician by keeping global warming in his pocket, depending on the audience.

"From all reports, Al Gore personally cares about global warming, but he considers it a political liability, and that's why he's not talking about it much," said Alan Durning, executive director of Northwest Environment Watch, a Seattle-based research group.

"Keep in mind that the swing voters in the dozen-odd Midwestern states don't care about global warming," Durning said. "And those (candidates) who have ignored the polls fell by the wayside long ago."

Gore's apparent retreat has angered many in the environmental community. His 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance" called for the phase-out of the internal combustion engine. The book pushed for the development of nonfossil fuels and helped ignite a movement around global warming.

Ross Gelbspan, author of "The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription," said that without aggressive leadership by the next president, the chance of reversing global warming is slim. Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe editor and reporter, is among the nation's most outspoken activists on global warming.

"I think Al Gore's ambition has overwhelmed his conscience on this," Gelbspan said. "With Bush, and his ties to Big Oil, it's more understandable that it's not one of his issues."

Yet much of Gore's political ascension is tied to his crusade for the environment. Activist leaders agree that Gore has been the best friend the environment has had in the White House, even though he has occasionally become tentative when political winds shifted.

In 1997, Gore flew to Kyoto, Japan, to broker a compromise on a worldwide agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Gore's advisers pleaded with him not to take such a visible role in the controversial accord.

The Senate later refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty. A big stumbling block was whether developing nations should be allowed to increase carbon emissions at the same time as developed nations cut back. Developing nations say they need to be allowed to increase fossil fuel use to raise their standard of living. They point out that the United States, with 5 percent of the world's population, accounts for 25 percent of the world's annual oil consumption.

Developed nations need to curb their heavy use of fuel, leaders of developing nations argue.

In the presidential campaign, Gore has sought to avoid this quagmire. During the GOP convention this summer, the Clinton-Gore White House declared that the United States could meet its emissions-reductions goals by planting trees rather than instituting more politically and economically painful measures, Gelbspan said.

Seth Dunn, a researcher at the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C., environmental think tank, said the whole issue may be too complex for the sound-bite mentality of the presidential campaign.

"It's not conducive to short-term policy issues" such as education and Medicare, Dunn said.

But on the flip side, global warming embodies many of the real-world challenges the next president will face: the blending of foreign and domestic policy, and the roles of government and industry in a democracy.

Katie McGinty, Gore's senior environmental policy adviser, disputes assertions that the vice president has retreated in his resolve to address global warming.

"His commitment has not wavered at all," McGinty said. "He has been persistent, and will continue to be persistent, in moving us forward and taking on this climate change issue."

McGinty pointed to Gore's energy plan that would spend $150 billion over 10 years to give tax credits to buyers of super-efficient hybrid cars, tax breaks to power companies that reduce emissions, increased spending on mass transit and research grants to develop clean energy sources.

"The really inexcusable part of this mess is we have the alternatives and the resources to deploy many of these new technologies," McGinty said. "It is just horrific that the Congress, and George Bush with them, are so much in the pocket of Big Oil that they would deny the country access to them."

McGinty blames the GOP for much of Gore's lack of progress thus far.

In 1994, the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution took over both chambers of Congress, and many of the conservative freshmen strongly opposed new environmental regulations.

McGinty also blames the media for not getting Gore's message out. In June, when Gore spent a week launching his energy initiative, he couldn't interest the media, she said.

"He talked about global warming and the wonderful energy options we had, and we got nothing from the press," she said.

The issue of global warming does not appear to be a priority for Bush.

"Scientific data have shown that there are slight increases in the average temperatures this century," Bush spokesman Ken Lisaius said. "But the causes and impact of that slight warming are uncertain."

Although many Republicans argue more research is needed, many leaders in private industry are asserting that concrete steps need to be taken to cut carbon emissions.

In a speech at Stanford University in 1997, British Petroleum Chairman John Browne said: "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part."

Since 1997, several major multinational corporations -- including DuPont -- have voluntarily decided to cut emissions beyond targets set in the Kyoto Protocol. Oil companies, including BP Amoco, Shell, Texaco and ARCO, are spending heavily on hydrogen-based clean energy development. Many are spending heavily on solar energy.

Lisaius said Bush, who opposes the Kyoto Protocol as unfair to the United States, believes that any changes in the Earth's atmosphere are serious, but require more research.

"His position is that you have to work with local communities, business and property owners and congressional representatives to develop new technologies and reduce harmful emissions," Lisaius said.

In any event, if global warming doesn't come up again in the presidential race, it will make headlines soon afterward, at least in other countries.

One week after the election, representatives from more than 160 countries will meet in The Hague for the United Nations Climate Change Convention. The plan is to build on the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by setting ambitious emissions reduction goals for industrial and developing nations.

HEATING UP
Here's a sample of the data that alarm scientists:

CARBON DIOXIDE: For centuries, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere held steady at about 280 parts per million. But since the late 1800s, the level has soared by more than 25 percent, to 366 parts per million in 1998.

TEMPERATURE: The average global temperature has gradually increased since the 1800s. The average global temperature last year was 57.83 F, up from 56.84 F in 1866. Most of that increase has occurred since 1978.

GLACIER MELT: As the world warms, ice sheets melt. In Glacier National Park in the Rocky Mountains, the number of glaciers has dropped from 150 in 1850 to fewer than 50 today. The Columbia Glacier in Alaska has retreated roughly eight miles since 1982. In the Alps in Western Europe, since 1850, the glacial area has shrunk by up to 40 percent and volume has declined by more than 50 percent.