There Are Green '08 Candidates, and Then There Are Some That Aren't ... at All

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 4, 2008.

If you're not sure where presidential contenders, Democratic or Republican, stand on environmental issues -- it's not surprising. There has been little discussion in the debates.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Action Fund, you're more likely to know what a candidate thinks of UFOs than their position on what we should do about global warming. On Tim Russert's Meet the Press there have been 827 questions to candidates and zero mentioned global warming. Same for George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week and Bob Schiefffer on CBS's Face the Nation. CNN's Wolf Blitzer had two questions out of 402 and Chris Wallace on Fox also had two out of 563.

Despite mainstream media's coverage, the candidates' positions stand on global warming and our energy future should be a pressing concern for voters. And there are differences between the candidates.

What are the main issues?

Carbon emissions

Let's start with Clinton. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has given Clinton a lifetime score of 90 (out of 100) points in her record on the environment and her policies. She is a co-sponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, considered by many to be the strongest global warming legislation introduced in the Senate.

In many instances she falls right in step with LCV's guidelines. Like LCV, to deal with global warming she supports a mandatory cap on emissions and an 80 percent reduction on carbon emissions by 2050. This is the language that most environmental groups are supporting, including the popular Step It Up and 1Sky campaigns.

Obama, who has a score of 96 from LCV, and is also a co-sponsor of the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, has the same position. These two Democrats fall right in step with the mainstream environmental movement on this point.

For Republicans, the story is different. McCain (LCV score of 26), has billed himself as the most enviro-friendly of his party and was recently endorsed by Gov. Schwarzenegger at a solar roofing company, of all places. The governor said of McCain, "He's a crusader, has a great vision in protecting the environment and also protecting the economy."

McCain introduced legislation (with Joe Lieberman) in the Senate, called the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which would cap emissions at 2004 levels by 2012 and then decrease them by 30 percent by 2050, a much less ambitious plan than what many environmental organizations and leading scientists have said is necessary.

The rest of the Republican field doesn't offer much. Huckabee (no score from LCV) said he would support cap and trade but hasn't given any specifics; Ron Paul (LCV score of 30) does not support cap and trade; and Romney (no score from LCV) says no unless the rest of the world also participates in the system -- so much for the United States taking a leading role in world politics on this one.

Fuel efficiency

Clinton supports setting a fuel efficiency level of 40 mpg by 2020 and 50 mpg by 2030, pretty much in line with LVC and other enviros as well. Obama is similar but gives a bit of a break to the bigger vehicles, supporting 40 mpg by 2020 but only 32 for light trucks.

McCain says he supports raising standards but hasn't offered specifics. While Huckabee is on board for 35 mpg by 2020. Romney and Paul both oppose fuel efficiency standards.

Energy consumption and renewables

Things get a little more dicey with the candidates on specific energy policy. Clinton supports 25 percent of energy from renewables by 2025 and LCV advocates for 20 percent by 2020. She also supports a 20 percent reduction in energy consumption by 2020 -- a bit above LCV's 10 percent.

Obama also advocates 25 percent by 2025, but while Clinton calls for a $50 billion investment fund for renewables, Obama sets the bar at $150 billion. And he calls for a 50 percent reduction by 2030 in consumption.

McCain and Romney support renewables but don't offer any plan. Huckabee calls for 15 percent of energy from renewables by 2020 (but this also includes "clean coal" and nuclear). And Paul is willing to let the market try to solve this problem and opposes using subsidies to help that process out.

Coal

There is really no candidate in the race right now that gets it right on coal.

LCV, Step It Up, 1Sky, and other environmental organizations support a moratorium on all new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon -- meaning they can burn coal but they have to get rid of the carbon emissions. However, the reality is that carbon capture is a technology that has so far remained unproven at the industrial level. Plans to store carbon underground have run into much criticism. Also, residents of coal country, particularly Appalachia, have come out strongly against any technology using coal, because the extraction and cleaning process, which involves blowing up mountains, burying rivers and polluting watershed and communities, wreaks environmental and cultural havoc.

See more stories tagged with: environment, election08

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »