How Green Is Your Candidate?

Clean Air Performance Professionals

At an Obama event at the Plug-and-Play center in Silicon Valley on May 15, 2007, I asked Obama why it took him almost 4 months to sign on to the Sanders-Boxer bill. He said it was because he was a co-sponsor of the (weaker) McCain-Lieberman bill (S.280) and that the Boxer bill was so tough that it wouldn't pass so his support would only be symbolic.

But a real leader takes positions that are necessary for the safety of our country and then inspires others to follow. If Obama was the real leader our country needs, he'd help Boxer turn that bill that "wouldn't pass" into a bill that would pass by lending his support to the bill and using his powers of persuasion to convince other Senators to support it.

In this case, Boxer's bill isn't just a good bill; it is absolutely required if we are to have any chance at all to stop global warming. That's why the Union of Concerned Scientists calls this bill the "gold standard" of climate change bills. Obama and Clinton should have jumped on this bill in January when it was introduced and spent their time helping Boxer convince other Senators to support it. That would be a real demonstration of leadership on the most critical issue that this planet has ever faced.

Instead, Clinton and Obama left the real climate leadership to Boxer, Dodd (who co-sponsored early), and Edwards. Edwards, who is not in the Senate anymore, on March 16, became the first presidential candidate to publicly pledge to the target of reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 80% by 2050, a goal which parallels Boxer's bill.

Obama's answer is also inconsistent with his actions. If Obama has a policy of not signing on to bills that are only symbolic, then why did he sign on as a co-sponsor of Sanders-Boxer on May 3? The bill did not change at all since it was introduced and nothing changed externally that would have suddenly made the bill more likely to pass. Obama signed on Thursday morning; Clinton signed on a few hours later. He should have signed on at the start and let his supporters know to tell their Senators to sign on to this. He still hasn't done that. Neither has Clinton. They talk a good game, but when it comes down to taking the actions that a leader would take, they fail.

Yes, I like wind turbines and the future of photo-voltaics. but ...

None has spoken broadly of "clean-sourced" energy -- existing technological methods used in other countries which, scaled up can help make us self-sufficient and produce not only the energy but jobs and international marketing opportunities.

• Western and west-central states sit astride geothermal zones which can heat homes and businesses.  Some sources are hot enough to directly generate steam and electricity.  Individual, cluster, or community systems can be built-in from scratch (or retrofitted into the infra-structure) rather than expanding our hydrocarbon based facilities to sustain a growing population. Not only does this provide jobs at home but it develops an industry that can sell the technology to developing nations which also sit astride their own "rings of fire".

• One-quarter of one percent of the energy of the Gulf Stream can power the entire (electrical) energy demands of the United States into the forseeable future. Steady and constant (and hidden well below the surface) the off-shore current can allow oil companies to become carbon-free energy companies feeding a national grid.

• Tides are predictable, not affected by clouds or night. No storgage necessary.  Given that the U.S. has more coastline than any other country except Australia power can be locally generated and fed into the grid.  The mega-tides of the Bay of Fundy may be needed for a mega-generating source, but hosts of micro generators can feed the grid.

• Waves, too, can be harnessed to produce energy.

• The executive and purchasing powers of the Federal government (GSA and DoD), coupled with those of the governments of the various states, counties, and municipalities can incentivize industry to build fleets of first, hybrid, and then electric vehicles for domestic use.  Perhaps a M1A1 tank needs to run on hydrocarbons, but domestic vehicles around bases need not.  60-70 years ago electric delivery trucks moved around cities during (and before) WW II.  The Postal Service; FedEx; UPS; can do so again.

• The executive and purchasing powers of the Federal government (GSA, DoD, HUD, FHLBB, etc.) -- and perhaps even major lenders and insurers -- as well as the various states, counties, and municipalities can set green standards foor all future construction.

"Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
"More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed
from Lake Nyos 15 years ago. "
"In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon
dioxide which hugged the ground and flowed down
surrounding valleys to suffocate thousands of local villagers
and animals.

The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the
same volcanic zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "

The CO2 storage facilities proposed by Al Gore, besides
being prone to leak, will be a target for terrorists.      A
terrorist has only to cause a leak to kill more people than a
nuclear bomb would.   Leaks are very easy to cause in high
pressure containers.   CO2 storage is a time bomb.      

Americans are paranoid about all things nuclear.   NMR had
to be renamed MRI to get sick people into the scanner.  
Perhaps somebody's response is to let the millions die in the
carbon dioxide so that the survivors will listen to reason?      
Nuclear power is the safest kind.      Killing millions of
people with CO2 is a sick, genocidal way to end the
paranoia over all things nuclear.     I have no financial
interest in nuclear power and no connection with the
nuclear power industry.

Barack Obama says that we can lead the world in energy reforms by developing new technologies to replace gasoline cars and other things.  That kind of thinking pleases the greedy big biz who have a stranglehold on our economy, while moving us toward what we really need to save the world.

You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, and Obama can be respectful and fair.  That's why people who hate politics on all sides are coming out to support Obama.

For example, Obama's "Health for Hybrids" bill (S.1151). I read the bill. Know what? It says that you are ineligible for the funds if your average fuel economy goes down. So Obama is saying that the government will spend all this money on the car makers provided the car makers don't get WORSE!!! That's not moving the country forward. He's just spending lots of money to maintain the status quo without requiring any forward progress. If we are going to spend taxpayer money on the auto companies, we need to get cleaner vehicles in return. His bill doesn't even require them to improve their efficiency by 1 mile per gallon...ever!

Another example is Obama's CAFE bill (S.2694). The Sierra Club analysis posted on their website says that, due to all the loopholes,  "it is likely that this bill will not do much to raise CAFE." I had a long argument with Obama's communication director (Robert Gibbs) who claimed the Sierra Club's analysis was wrong. I contacted the analyst who wrote the report (Brenden Bell) and received documents and arguments that justified that there was no mistake in the analysis. I re-read the bill and concluded Bell's analysis was correct based on the historical observations of NHTSA's behavior.

So yeah, Obama's rhetoric sounds GREAT. But the reality is that if he gets elected, don't expect much forward progress on global warming. And if we don't make dramatic reductions before 2020, we may never be able to reverse the GHG concentrations since we are starting to see major ecosystems like the Southern Ocean start to lose it's ability to absorb CO2.

We don't have much time. Obama sure doesn't appear the guy to lead this effort. And his support of Coal to Liquids (CTL) should send shivers down the spine of any environmentalist. Granted, he's recently backed down and required CTL to be slightly cleaner than the fuel it replaces, but the focus has to be on zero emissions pathways, not on pathways that are slightly better. You'll NEVER achieve the 80% to 90% greenhouse gas reductions we need by focusing on fuels that are only incrementally cleaner that the fuels they replace (even if you could make such a fuel).

There are way better zero or near zero pathways for both transportation and electric power. That should be the focus of government policy; to enable and incentivize the rapid adoption of those pathways.

  Everyone is talking and thinking about the coming election as though it will happen.  The interim "lame duck" period in the next several months can be used by the current occupants of the White House to effectively destroy our constitutional rights  -- unless they are impeached as immediately as possible -- by September 2007.  

Suffice it to say, it's politics as usual but I think my vote (which was sort of following Obama) is definitely going elsewhere now. Edwards is one of the frontrunners but, wow, I'm gonna find out more about this Dodd fellow!!!

Clinton's position is directly opposite that of every major environmental group. For example, see this statement from the Sierra Club opposing coal to liquids. Obama and Clinton's vote is opposite that of at least 61% of the Senate. And it's opposite the vote of the most reliable environmental votes in the Senate (Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, Wyden, Whitehouse, etc).

In fact, even the Senate's leading global warming skeptic (Inhofe) voted the same way Boxer did on this amendment!

This vote is very telling of how Clinton and Obama would be on global warming, i.e., very weak.

     I am not sure what happened with the League of Conservation Voters Score Card, but out of all the candidates that I heard speak on the issues of Global Warming, I thought that Mike Gravel sounded the best. I liked his idea of empowering the American people to vote on legislature from all areas of the federal government and allowing us to choose what direction or stance we want the government to go. I also liked how he answered by telling people to follow the money trail and how candid he was about all the front runners being bought and paid for by special interest groups and their lobbyists. We will never have an independent thinking president or an honest government until the representatives in every governmental position are merely there to reflect the will of the people and until the will of the people is heard and heeded. The American people should be able to decide what does and what does not become policy. This choice should not be solely in the hands of any government official, including the president, or any branch of government, such as the senate or congress. The will of the people should govern the people, period. This country is supposed to be a government OF the people and FOR the people, not up for grabs to the highest bidder. It should not be bought and sold by special interest groups and their lobbyists. I think it is high time we the people take back our government and wake up to the game they have us playing. This current government is a facade, this is not a free country governed by the people for the people, it is a government bought and sold to the highest bidder, among whom are the special interest groups that are causing all the problems. They make you think that you are free and that you can make a difference by voting for candidate number one or number two, but that is a joke. All you can do is pick the guy in their right pocket, or pick the guy in their left pocket, but no matter who you pick, as long as you are picking between the main two front runners, it will always be one of the two guys bought and paid for by the special interest groups who put him (or her) on the block for you to choose. Its a shame, wake up. We all need to not only "think outside the box", but we also need to "vote outside the box" in order to see anything change in a meaningful way. I know I am ranting a little bit here, but search your hearts, do some research and see for yourself. Follow the money trail and see what Mike Gravel is talking about. If for no other reason, Mike Gravel's out-front truthfulness has out shown all the other speakers for me, which has earned him my first choice.

     My second choice from the candidates would be Dennis Kucinich for his compassionate demeanor in addressing the issues and for his approach of integrating the entire government to get them all on board using a "Holistic" approach. I believe that using an integrated and holistic approach to any problem is the best way and by far the most dynamic.

     My third choice would be a tie between Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson because of their commitment to goal setting and standards in the time-lines they have set for solving the issues of global warming. I liked the LCV score card ratings of Bill Richardson the best because they seem the most aggressive.

     However, according to the score card from LCV, I feel that all the candidates fall far short of doing what I feel should be done. Everyone keeps talking about alternative fuels. Fuels are the problem, we need to go "Green" and get off ALL fuels, period. No more combustibles, period. No more burning fuels, period. We need to use clean and green energy producing strategies already available to us, that work. They want to keep telling the public and the voters that our technologies are not up to speed yet for us to get off of fuels completely and that we need alternative fuels and half-measures such as the hybrid cars (which still use fuels). I say they are all full of crap. Go on-line, do your own research, heck, watch the Science Channel, and you will see that there are already plenty of totally clean and green technologies available right now and many have been waiting to be used for decades, but have been kept under wraps by the special interest groups and lobbyists. Cars can run perfectly well without fuel, completely electric. They have plenty of power, plenty of pick up and go, and can go long distances. There have been completely electric vehicle races over long distances, which prove it can be done. Why have we not seen cars available at your local dealership...? Bottom-line, money. If any of you have not seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", then you need to watch it right away. Do a Google search or Wikipedia.com search for the keywords "Who Killed the Electric Car", or "EV1" the first all electric vehicle sold in the US by General Motors, which was recalled from all its lease owners (against their will) by General Motors. General Motors had all the vehicles crushed and then, shredded. They wanted the cars to disappear and quick. They didn't want to give up all the maintenance and repair needed for fuel engines, they didn't want to give up all the money they make on the inefficient gas-guzzling beasts currently on the roads. Why sell people a car that runs on electricity cheaply and without the need of oil changes, filter replacements, expensive gas or fuels, when you can sell them expensive gas-guzzling hogs that need tons of upkeep, repair and replacement parts constantly and are far less reliable? Heck that is a no-brainer, even for the simplest among us. Crush the electric cars, hope that everyone forgets about them, try to fight tooth and nail to keep them from ever going into production in our lifetimes, and convince the public that our technology is not advanced enough to produce efficient enough totally electric cars. Instead, they offer us tons of half-measures and "alternative fuels" and keep selling us the same old crap. It is a scam people, trust me. Don't buy it for one second. If they think there is a snow balls chance in, you know where, that they can continue to sell you fuel driven vehicles instead of clean and green totally electric cars they will. They do not want to ever give up their strangle hold on the auto industry, or the fuel industry and they believe that they have us all by the gotchas, because we are all addicted to oil. Well, they are only partly correct. That may be the current state of things, but we do have a choice.

     I say that if everyone would pull together and absolutely refuse to buy another new vehicle until auto companies offer us totally clean and green electric cars that are efficient, powerful, and can go long distances without the need for constant recharging (like many vehicles that have already been built and can be built again), then we can force them to change and give us what we demand. They will be forced into a position by us (the people, the consumers, and the true powers in the world) to give us what we want. The choice for the auto companies would be simple, either get with the program and produce the type of vehicles we demand, or they can choose to be stubborn and watch as their auto companies sink like the Titanic. Yes, we still need our vehicles to get to our jobs and to get from point A to point B. However, we do not have to buy new vehicles. There are old vehicles we can purchase, and cheaper. We can keep up our current vehicles indefinitely with upkeep and repair, cheaper than buying a new vehicle. Therefore, why not hold out on buying that new vehicle for a great cause? There is nothing saying that we absolutely have to buy a new vehicle. However, if everyone refused to buy new vehicles until we got what we wanted and until they met OUR demands, then we would see changes super quick. Like within the next year, not 2050. The time table they are trying to sell us is a joke! Frankly I find it an insult to my intelligence and to that of all Americans smart enough to understand what I am talking about. Remember the phrase, "United we stand, divided we fall"? They are trying to divide us, I say we unite and never allow ourselves to be divided. We the people DO STILL have the power. I say we use it! Before its too late...

     Thank you for taking the time to read this long post, I hope you found it inspiring. Take care and be well.

With boundless love, compassion, joy, and equanimity for all,
John Lambert

PS- For more information check out the following URLs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car% ...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?um=1&tab=wv&c ...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Who+Killed+The+Elec ...

John Lambert

I loved your points. I think that the power that can be harnessed from water currents is a great option for finding ways to generate clean and green electricity. It is a constant, dependable, and endless source of energy that will not produce a single ounce of CO2.

Sincerely,
John Lambert

PS- I wish our leaders would recognize some of these options.

John Lambert

From: <governor@govmail.ca.gov>

To: <cappcharlie@earthlink.net>

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:04 PM

Subject: Re:"Conservation may limit global warming"(LA) Times / February 28, 2007

 Thank you for your letter on an issue I take to heart - fighting global climate change.  I appreciate that you took the time to share your concern about the impact global climate change has on California.  

 I'm committed to addressing this issue - we know the science, we see the threat and the time for action is now.  That's why I worked with members of our Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).  AB 32 established California as a national leader in the fight against climate change.  We established a program for the capping and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and California is set to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

 While California leads the way, we must work with our neighbors in the fight.  I've partnered with the governors of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint strategy to combat global climate change.  Like AB 32, the agreement establishes a regional cap and reduction program for GHG emissions, as well as a framework for developing a similar national program.

 To reduce GHG emissions and also decrease California's reliance on foreign oil, I have established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation.  By 2020, the LCFS will reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent - the same as removing 3 million cars from the road.

 Through our efforts to fight climate change, we can secure both a stronger economy and a cleaner environment for future generations.  Our programs foster economic growth by promoting the development of green technology.  As the computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley, green-clean technology can be the next great economic wave for California.

 Thanks again for your interest in climate change and for writing to share your thoughts.  I truly appreciate your personal commitment to the future of our great state.

 Sincerely,

 Arnold Schwarzenegger

see: <http://tinyurl.com/2a3kk3>
<http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18567>

jmt

jmt

1. Nukes are net producers of CO2 when you count the nuclear fuel cycle.

2. They also suck up money that could be spent more efficiently in terms of generating more energy, or avoiding more CO2 emissions.  Much more, in fact.  The factor is somewhere between 2 and 5, depending on some specifics.

3. Sequestering CO2 doesn't necessarily mean keeping it in huge tanks compressed as a gas.  Just sequestering the C is good enough, as the O2 isn't a problem.

4. If nukes are as safe as some say, why don't we repeal the Price-Anderson Act, which absolves nuclear power companies of all liability in the event of a catastrophe?  Because currently, no insurance company is willing to underwrite that risk.

California particularly, and certainly the entire U.S. has a love affair with the automobile.  But, we have equally important energy demands.  Seasonally (though not everywhere), not freezing to death may take priority over transportation.  Likewise, in other seasons, not just comfort but public safety require abatement of heat by artificial means .  Yes, air conditioning.

Beyond transportation, and the energy directly needed for productivity, significant usage is for home and workplace habitablity.

GEOTHERMAL  I call your attention to: <http://geoheat.oit.edu/dusys.htm>.  

It's a simple map, but it suggests  that 90 percent of Nevada, 40 percent of Utah, and 20 percent of Washington and Oregon have geothermal potential to directly drive steam generators --  cleanly and into the future for longer than homo sapiens sapiens have already walked the Earth.   Significant other portions are warm enough to heat our homes and businesses.

Perhaps we'd need to grant H1B visas to Icelandic engineers.  But, between the homefront production, installation, maintenance, and off-shore sales that's a lot of jobs.  What are there, 10 million households and workers in California, alone?

We caneven  bring back revivals of "The Pajama Game" and the singing of `Steam Heat'.

TIDAL POWER  

New York, New York -- if you can make it there you can make it anywhere. Tidal Turbines. see:
    <http://tinyurl.com/2a3kk3>
    <http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18567>

Well, actually, the turbines are made in Virginia.  And they can be placed anywhere.  More U.S. based industry.

Now consider the amount of water ebbing and flowing under the Golden Gate Bridge below and outside of the shipping lanes.  Or the Columbia River basin?

jmt

Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners

Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit

The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program

Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early '40s

In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air.

Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help

Clean Air Performance Professionals

If you look at Nuclear power and it's TOTAL cost, it ends up being more expensive environmentally than oil, gas or any other fossil fuel.. let alone it is THE most expensive type of power to deploy, long term.

Ultimately, Solar is the only game in town folks. We can plug the leaks with wind, tidal and geothermal, however the only source that has any chance of really meeting our energy needs as a species is The Sun. What -I- am excited about is recent commercialization of Triple Junction Amorphous Solar Panels, that operate at something like 30% efficiency, for about the same cost as old style panels that operate at 15%. Not only that, but they are flexible and can be made into nice looking black shingles.

Once we cross the 50% mark, we won't need wind, geothermal, or anything else. Solar will be all we need, even in cloudy moments. Energy storage technology is advancing by leaps and bounds every day, and by the time 50% of America is solarized, every home will also be able to store enough power to operate in the dark all night long. And we'll still be tied together in a grid, so those of us who need a bit more power can pay for it, and everyone else will get subsidized.

Simple. No need for Uranium, Coal, etc. All you need is some government action. a few tax breaks would handle most of it, including retrofitting homes for more energy efficiency. And electric cars will take us out of the stone age of burning oil.

This isn't a pipe dream.. people are doing this right now. It just needs MORE people doing it to solve the problem.

Boo partisanship!

http://enthusiasticcupcake.blogspot.com

Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners

Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit

The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program

Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early '40s

In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air.

Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help

Clean Air Performance Professionals

I do not think that this makes sense at all. It is still burning 80 to 90% gas, still adding CO2 to the air, still very polluting with NO and other volatile compounds. On the other hand, as several people have pointed out, electric cars are almost emission free, quiet, and can be powered by solar electricity from your own panels. A few earlier posts talked about this in more detail and I agree with them completely. The new Tesla can go 250 miles on a charge, get up to 160 mph speed (I am not sure of the exact number but it is up there) and costs only $100,000. Seriously this is their first car and they hope to make enough money from the ultra rich who want to have it at any cost to be able to develop and sell a lower priced car for the rest of us.

GM actually made an electric car that was very popular and then recalled them all to crush and shred them. See the whole bloody tale in the movie 'Who killed the electric car?'

I agree with John Lambert who said a lot of this earlier.

Ellie Gioumousis

Ellie Gioumousis

 NO on AB118

• Currently $0.51 per gallon goes to oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gasoline. That is about $500,000,000.00 per year corporate welfare.

• AB118 may add over $1.00 per gallon to additional gasoline profits in California

• This is about the money from your pocket

• The corn ethanol waiver in the 2005 federal energy bill will lower gasoline prices, improve miles per gallon, lower oil use and improve the air.

• NO on AB118. Contact your elected officials and share your opinion

Clean Air Performance Professionals

When government gets out of the people's way, people have the choice to choose and to invent and to succeed.  That is why Ron Paul is so popular with people who have an understanding of how economics affects everything else.

This is my #1 prob with the Dems.  It's all about raising taxes "on the rich".  I'm poor so it doesn't affect me personally, but I understand the unintended consequences of that.  They end up collecting less money because they move more out of the country!  Think of what happens when we cut spending in Washington and fire the IRS?  Think of all the money people would have left in their pockets to start/expand their businesses -- we could compete with China again in manufacturing without out repressive tax structure.

Vote for change, Vote for Liberty, Vote Ron Paul!

Ron Paul is in the green.

His position stands:

"Ron Paul opposes central government control over energy and wants to end all subsidies to energy companies"

To keep big government honest, the control starts at the local level. How else can we make an honest change in policy in America, to go Green?

I just don't see how DR can write such a missleading statement:

DR said about Ron Paul:
"But he's had nothing to say on climate and energy"

DR, you missed the point. Energy policy has EVERY THING to do with who controls it.

But, unfortunatly, that's probably the point.

Go Dennis and Co-Sponsors http://dennis4president.com

Try investing some R&D in ocean energy and there will be no energy crisis. Need a clean source of hydrogen from electrolysis, look no further than our oceans and let the moon do the work.  

Allan Dobie MEDes

Edwards: He strikes me as having real passion (a calling) for bringing about positive change, rather than being ambitious or egoistical about being president.  I believe that he would definitely propose and fight for the best legislation, settling only when absolutely necessary.  [I am strongly leading towards JE.]

Clinton: I believe that Clinton would heartily pitch her agenda (including environmental issues), but would start off from a position of compromise rather than settle for that.  However, unlike Obama, Clinton has the political clout to end up getting more than she has to give up.

Obama: I feel as though Obama would cave (quickly) on lots of issues.  He would try to compromise on everything, not wanting to strain any relationships -- particularly since he does not have years of history with those power brokers. He pretty much just mimics Hillary Clinton.  I have scrutinized his record and bio.  He has been a motivational speaker as a career, but I don't see the depth of leadership there.  To me, he seems ambitious about being president. Otherwise, he would devote more time to public service and true leadership before running for president.  (He basically has only worked as a professional at anything for 15 years, since law school.) [Would not consider for president unless the only democratic choice.]

Kucinich, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Gravel: Love what they are selling, but the race is too close now to take a vote away from a candidate who could beat the republican candidate.

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

This morning it was -5F at my house. I do not warm up my car. It is not necessary. Dress for the weather!

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Given the criticism from all sides of the biased media covering only the front runners and wealthy candidates... and given Grist's superior journalistic integrity and interest in seeing that voters are fully informed... why have you neglected to present all 100 or so candidates' views on the environment here?

See...

http://votesmart.org/election_president_search.php?type=a ...

... for a list.

I can understand why you might not cover the quirky Light party, the fascists, or the Prohibitionist Party, especially since there is no primary race for such groups, but I notice you don't mention the Green Party candidate under this heading ... How Green Is Your Candidate? They DO have a primary right now and there are five Green candidates competing to be on the November ballot. And there are twelve Libertarian candidates competing in a primary.

You presentation of only the Democratic and Republican races further reinforces the public perception that we don't have many candidates to choose from and that the few we have are all the same and funded by corporate interests.

I suggest taking advantage of your popularity and growing influence to shine a light on some of the other primary races. And, of course, I assume that you will be looking at all of the independent candidate when we get closeer to November.

Thanks for you other election coverage, even if you are a bit biased. Just want to see you become news leaders rather than just news followers.

Don't cuss me or say to many bad things if you completely hate my argument! I just wanted to bring these ideas to light just for more thoughts to add to the brainstorm. Besides would you rather have someone not speak their mind if they may have something great to say or just keep it to them selves? That is another problem, too many great minds are going to waste as we speak along with more oil and further climate change, because of video games, xbox, playstations, computer games, etc!!! I know geniuses that perhaps could have solved the climate situation, had they not fallen victim to the gamer realm of life and wasted away!!! sorry about the long post. Any comments?

We offset the carbon footprint of campaigns in the 2007 election and hope to see some more politicians put their money where their mouth is in 2008

Ever hear of depleted uranium? It's what's in those munitions American has been bombing Iraq to hell with. Google "DU babies" and you'll see what little kids born contaminated with this shit look like. It ain't pretty, and oh, it isn't "green" either.

I read an article where the writer cited soaring cancer rates and birth defects in Iraq--she went as far to say that the Iraqi people will be wiped out. What's more, this DU dust seems to be travelling, and not just to neighbouring countries. (I've heard said it has floated over to North America and Britain).

Anyone who supports the war--any war--is not "green." You should know better.

I preferred Edwards, but you should check the video of Hillary on her fact sheet.

My prediction is that, even if we get a Hillary or Obama as our fearless leader, not much is going to change without continued leverage.  The majority of the general populace is going to be either angry/disappointed or so blissed out they got a Democrat in that both are going to be ready to tune out politics for some time.  The same corporate interests who back Bush are probably already lining up their dollars and their lobbyists to work on the next administration.
The same happened when Clinton was elected.  People stopped paying attention to vital issues of environment and energy, thinking they were solved under an attentive and sympathetic ticket.  They weren't.

Only if the two parties think that someone is watching them with an eye toward "stealing" "their votes" will we truly have responsive government, which is why we Greens deserve some respect and definitely inclusion on Grist.  Afterall, we're reading and participating here.  Are we not of the Grist community too?

If multiparty democracy is good enough for our troops to die for in Iraq, it's good enough for the U.S. to enact! Register, vote, respect third parties!

Toxins, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, protecting roadless areas, plummeting marine populations, solid waste (the floating mass of trash in the Pacific Ocean) etc.  When the enviro.'s stop talking about all of those, I guess they aren't problems anymore.  I guess we must have solved all those problems during the past seven years.

C'mon grist, don't jump on the bandwagon and narrowly pursue global warming solutions that cause serious enviro. side effects, and leave the rest of our endangered treasures to be plundered while we aren't looking.  You've got the bullhorn, this is you chance to draw attention to the Big Picture: All of these problems are connected...