Interviews and info on the presidential candidates' environmental positions

06 Jul 2007

Updated 14 May 2008

Forget boxers or briefs. You want to know about candidates' stances on energy and the environment, right? Well, you've come to the right place.

Compare the candidates' green positions using our handy chart. And get more in-depth info by reading our interviews with the candidates and checking out fact sheets on their environmental platforms and records.

Below you'll find a quick-and-dirty rundown on each major candidate, with links to each interview and fact sheet.

Descriptions of candidates and their positions are not and should not be perceived as endorsements. Grist does not endorse political candidates.

The Democrats

Hillary Clinton.

Photo: SEIU

Hillary Clinton has long recognized climate change as a problem but was vague about solutions until early November 2007, when she released one of the most comprehensive and well-researched climate and energy plans of the campaign season. Like plans offered earlier by John Edwards and Barack Obama, it proposes a cap-and-trade system that would cut greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, and would auction 100 percent of the pollution permits. Overall, the two biggest areas of focus are efficiency and investment. The former would boost standards for everything from vehicles to buildings to the electricity grid; the latter would channel money to renewables, plug-in hybrids, and carbon sequestration. Clinton would also create a National Energy Council to coordinate action across federal agencies. In April 2008, Clinton disappointed environmentalists and economists by calling for the federal gas tax to be suspended over the summer.

Read Grist's interview with Clinton.
Check out a fact sheet on Clinton.
Watch video of Clinton at a Grist-sponsored forum.
Listen to an audio clip from Grist's interview with Clinton:

Barack Obama.

Photo: Conrad Erb Photography

Barack Obama impressed enviros with the energy and climate plan he unveiled in October 2007, which is detailed, expansive, and ambitious. (Previously, he had angered greens by cheerleading for liquefied coal; he back-pedaled from that position.) Obama's climate plan centers on a cap-and-trade system that aims for 80 percent emission reductions from 1990 levels by 2050 and calls for auctioning 100 percent of the pollution permits. The proposal also describes a $150 billion investment plan to boost clean energy and create green jobs, along with fine-grained proposals to boost efficiency, build a smart electricity grid, and encourage public transportation. Obama distinguished himself from Clinton in April 2008 by refusing to endorse calls for a gas-tax holiday, a stance that earned him respect from enviros and pundits alike.

Read Grist's interview with Obama.
Read an interview with Obama adviser Jason Grumet.
Check out a fact sheet on Obama.
Listen to an audio clip from Grist's interview with Obama:

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

The Republican

John McCain.

Photo: hatch1921

John McCain has a mixed record on the environment, but he's long been outspoken about global warming. He introduced the first major bill in the Senate to address it: the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003, cosponsored with Joe Lieberman. In May 2008, he unveiled a new plan for tackling the problem, a cap-and-trade system with a series of targets for gradually reducing carbon emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. The plan would give away many pollution credits instead of auctioning them off, and would give polluters expansive leeway to buy carbon offsets instead of reducing their own emissions. Beyond this plan, McCain has supported modest increases in fuel-efficiency standards, and has spoken out against handouts to Big Oil. He used to be almost alone in Congress in opposing ethanol subsidies, but since launching his current presidential campaign, he has changed his tune. He's never wavered in his support of subsidies for the nuclear power industry, though.

Read Grist's interview with McCain.
Read an interview with McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Check out a fact sheet on McCain.
Listen to an audio clip from Grist's interview with McCain:

The Independent

Ralph Nader.

Though Ralph Nader is running as an independent and not under the Green Party banner this time around (at least not yet), he still has some serious environmental cred (at least among those not still livid over his role in Gore's 2000 presidential defeat). In the heyday of his consumer advocacy, he and the groups he formed helped get landmark environmental and consumer-protection laws passed, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. He has also spent decades fighting nuclear power. These days, Nader regularly decries corporate influence in government, including massive subsidies to nuclear power and polluting industries. He touts solar power as a way to wean the country off fossil fuels. Nader also advocates for a carbon tax as a way to fight climate change, something the remaining major-party presidential candidates have ruled out.

Read Grist's interview with Nader.
Check out a fact sheet on Nader.

The Dropouts

The path to the presidency is littered with losers, some more sore than others. If you're wondering what might have been, check out our info on the ex-candidates' environmental views.

DEMOCRATS

Joe Biden

Chris Dodd

John Edwards

interview
fact sheet
video from a Grist-sponsored forum

Mike Gravel
(OK, he's not technically a dropout, but he is a non-factor in the race.)

Dennis Kucinich

interview
fact sheet
video from a Grist-sponsored forum

Bill Richardson

Tom Vilsack

interview

REPUBLICANS

Sam Brownback

Rudy Giuliani

fact sheet

Mike Huckabee

Duncan Hunter

fact sheet

Ron Paul
(He hasn't dropped out yet, but McCain has effectively been declared the winner.)

Mitt Romney

fact sheet

Tom Tancredo

Fred Thompson

fact sheet

Comments: (51 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Ron Paul

Does Dr. Ron Paul have an opinion on global warming or ethanol mandates with corporate welfare?

Clean Air Performance Professionals

by Charlie Peters at 4:22 PM on 06 Jul 2007

Excellent analysis

I spent a month looking at the top 3 candidates including talking directly with all 3 and looking at their voting records. Your summary is excellent. The fact that both Clinton and Obama signed onto Sanders-Boxer on the same day, 4 months after the bill was introduced and after 11 Senators had already signed on (including 3 months after Chris Dodd) is a telling indicator of how they really feel about climate change. Not only were Clinton and Obama among the last to sign onto this bill, but they signed on SILENTLY with no press announcement at all. And since then, they've never asked their supporters to pressure their Senators to co-sponsor this critical bill. This is not the leadership that is going to solve the climate crisis. Of the top 3 candidates, Edwards is the climate change standout.

by stk at 11:22 PM on 07 Jul 2007

It's the leadership differences that matter

The analyis above is exactly right. It's not the policy differences we should be looking at; it is the leadership differences. Obama and Clinton are clearly both followers on climate change and their actions on the Sanders-Boxer makes that crystal clear. We will never solve the climate crisis with a President who is a follower on climate change.

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.

by stk at 2:24 AM on 08 Jul 2007

Unfortunately -

some "progressives" think Obama Girl and "hope" are solutions for climate change.
Hey - but who knew pole dancing and motivational speeches would be a winning combination for a presidential candidate? The PR and marketing strategists - guiding Obama's campaign!

by annefrank at 7:33 AM on 08 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

Energy Independence

None of the candidates, yet, are bold enough or ready to capture the voters' imaginations. They are still stuck on the linguistics of current corporate priorities rather than challenge us to a new future. So, we still, only, hear of bio-renewables; squeezing hydrocarbons out of less productive sources, etc.

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.

For the sake of "brevity" I'll stop here. I'd like a candidate bold enough to embrace at least some of these goals.

jmt

by jmt at 9:56 AM on 08 Jul 2007

carbon dioxide storage

Al Gore's Live Earth Pledge has a fatal flaw: "the capacity
to safely trap and store the CO2." There is no safe way to
confine trillions of tons of CO2 at high pressure. It WILL
leak out and suffocate millions of people. CO2 is denser
than air and displaces air at ground level. CO2 has caused
suffocation in Africa. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm

"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.

by Asteroid Miner at 12:31 PM on 08 Jul 2007

Extinction of Homo Sapiens [people]

download from:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938- ...
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of coal. Nuclear power is the safest available.

by Asteroid Miner at 12:41 PM on 08 Jul 2007

Coal contains uranium, arsenic, lead, thorium...

Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant to Fully fuel a nuclear power plant with the same output? See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.htm ...
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500 nuclear power plants of the same size. That isn't all that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The natural background radiation that has been there since the beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-fired power plant. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.htm ...
If the safety level of nuclear power plants were LOWERED to the same level as coal-fired power plants, the resulting [nuclear] electricity would be very cheap indeed and nuclear power would be very efficient.
I have NO connection with the nuclear power industry.

by Asteroid Miner at 12:45 PM on 08 Jul 2007

Want it all, want it now

Yes we all agree that major overhaul is needed to save the planet. But reality check : great idealists like Nader or Kucinich or the more popular Edwards, scare people by wanting too much all at once.

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.

by Richie Rich at 1:36 PM on 08 Jul 2007

Obama isn't likely to make any forward progress

Yeah, Obama's rhetoric sounds great. But when you actually read what he's proposing as these "compromises" you find that he's able to forge these compromises because he allows all sorts of escape clauses so nobody has to change. In short, if you don't require any forward progress, it's easy to find a compromise position that all sides can agree to.

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.

by stk at 4:17 PM on 08 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

Emerging Leaders . . .

I hope to see more postings and information about the Green Party platform on global warming and other subjects.

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.

by Kathlyn Lew at 4:44 PM on 08 Jul 2007

The VOTE

Many of us were attendees at MoveOn.org LiveEarth parties yesterday where we watched with some hope of finding a few 'real' answers to some not too ingenious questions about just how the candidates would handle global warming if elected and what set them apart from their rivals. Most of the answers were non-answers really and, although some boasted of how they were treating global warming as their 'top priority', most merely postured about how great their plans were and gave very little convincing evidence about just how they might actually go about achieving these goals.
I think of all the candiates included, Chris Dodd and John Edwards had the most forward thinking plans with what sounded like perhaps the commitment to actually move forward with them. While Richardson talks big numbers (man, I LOVE 50mpg by 2020!), he just doesn't convince me that he's got the charisma and compassion to carry the country in a direction I hope to see us go. Kucinich is the most warm and fuzzy of all but he doesn't seem to be articulate enough on just how he would go about making real changes and, on the League of Conservation Voters' Global Warming Score Card, he is not very aggressive about his stance.

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!!!

by vjbeach at 5:07 PM on 08 Jul 2007

Clinton voted in favor of coal to liquids

The analysis should have mentioned that on June 19, 2007, Clinton and Obama both voted for a coal to liquids amendment.

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.

by stk at 12:17 AM on 09 Jul 2007

Dennis Kucinich please

Dennis is the greenest of the candidates running
He is a vegan. He has a plan. He has well thought out positions not just the rhetoric offered by others. It's bad enough the main stream media excludes Dennis from even name mention but for you to also? I don't get it. America's last great real hope lies in the head and heart of Congressman Kucinich. Do your green assessments AFTER you listen. Thanks.

by Sheila at 1:47 AM on 09 Jul 2007

green candidates

I'm still watching the candidates. I favor Hilary however Edwards looks to be in the lead. Retoric about Hilary seems biased and generalized. Sorting out the bias over a female president in whatever I read.

All the men have let us down, can we afford to ignore the women?

by Green America at 8:51 AM on 09 Jul 2007

Candidates

War and environment are linked, as are their records on issues including these and human right. Hillary is in the wrong party. I trust Chuck Hegal more (mabie even Ron Paul.) Kenshich wins, promises are only important with common sense. Will Dean step in? The official non offical candidate Al Gore wins too (since he is not on the list.) If CO2 does not work (or anything else) I hope whoever has the sense to see it. Letting the inspectors work made common sense. Was a good (and tragic) test of common sense. Edwards I guess is a good compromise. I live in New Mexico. Richardson may be not paying as much attention to his people as he could. I did vote for him but I have reservations. He's no Lawton Chiles ( I lived in FL when Lawton he was FL's governor.)

by lifetree at 9:08 AM on 09 Jul 2007

What about Mike Gravel???

Hi everyone,

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

by pleasesaveourplanet at 10:54 PM on 09 Jul 2007

Good points...

Hello,

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

by pleasesaveourplanet at 11:00 PM on 09 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

Climate Change

----- Original Message -----

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

by Charlie Peters at 1:59 AM on 10 Jul 2007

clean-sourced energy

If "Good points..." was reflective of my comments, then consider these examples from New York City on the expandable potential of water currents:

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

jmt

jmt

by jmt at 12:41 PM on 10 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

Nukes vs. CO2

AsteroidMiner:

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

by mixedcontent at 1:45 PM on 10 Jul 2007

clean-sourced energy

I am not dismissive of Gov. Schwarzenegger's partnership "with the governors of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative." It is important, no -- essential, to substantially reduce carbon base useage in the transportation realm.

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

by jmt at 3:07 PM on 10 Jul 2007
[ Parent ]

ethanol stinks

NO on AB118

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

by Charlie Peters at 12:57 AM on 11 Jul 2007

Why cast doubt on Edwards?

Okay. John Edwards seems to have a really good plan, so why cast doubt on his sincerity? ("What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know...") We can't be sure what any candidate has in his of her heart, so we can only judge by what the candidate says he will do and hope that he follows through with it. Grist seems to be buying the mainstream media's "Edwards Story." Why? Perhaps you feel that the cynicism makes you appear more intelligent? Please don't do this. You could be helping to sink the best candidate we have out there!

by MizLee at 8:34 AM on 11 Jul 2007

Huh :)

Ron Paul fanatics aside (just what IS it with these people?) Asteroid Miner is completely off the map.

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.

by knome at 11:21 AM on 11 Jul 2007

Republicans

I was wondering the same thing about Ron Paul. I think it is sad that we often just list the Democratic candidates, assuming they will be the most environmentally progressive. It makes more sense to use the first post to talk about the main forerunners of BOTH parties, and maybe a few underdogs that are especially pro- or anti- environment.

Boo partisanship!

http://enthusiasticcupcake.blogspot.com

by thecupcake at 3:58 PM on 11 Jul 2007

AB118

NO on AB118

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

by Charlie Peters at 12:38 AM on 13 Jul 2007

Truly Clean Energy is what we need

Charlie Peters comments on corn ethanol seem quite contradictory to me. First he says that the current policy encourages oil use and increases oil profit and is a welfare policy for the the oil companies. Then he goes on to state that the 2005 bill would lower gas prices and improve mileage and improve the air.

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

by egms at 6:23 PM on 13 Jul 2007

ethanol/oil partnership

Saturday, July 14, 2007

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

(make copies and give to your friends)

Clean Air Performance Professionals

by Charlie Peters at 6:28 PM on 14 Jul 2007

The Real Issue

The real issue here is not how green each dem is, but whether our country is ready to make a change.
Everyone on this page would likely want the most green candidate to be elected, but what about the rest of the country?
We still live in the country that elected George Bush to a second term. And although his polls are low, it takes a lot of disgruntlement for most people to make a real change in their lives. (anyone try to lose weight or start an exercise program lately? After all, we all know that is good for us...oh yeah, but wait, we all ride our bikes everywhere and eat only local and organic foods...right?)
When people are uncertain, as they can be over the confusion of who is the best candidate, they go back to what is familiar, even if familiar is bad.
I'm not sure that even with the publicity surrounding it that global warming has reached a "critical mass" point where most people are really ready to make sacrifices in their daily lives to reduce green house gases.
What we really need to do right now is get behind the democratic candidate that has the most chance of winning, even if it is one that isn't quite as green as we would like, at least they are open to being educated and maybe not standing in the way of progress on this issue. People will take a small step before a giant leap and this may be the candidate most likely to win the mass vote.
This may seem to some like sacrificing your high morals, and it probably is, but small steps may unfortunately be the only way to show people the way.

by kernyl at 1:27 PM on 16 Jul 2007

Corporate hacks?

Does Grist intend on running interviews with candidates from parties other than two corporate parties? I certainly hope so.

by Colin Bennett at 11:20 AM on 07 Aug 2007

Ron Paul

One of the best things we can do to fight global warming is to stop the federal subsidies to big corporations, especially oil. This would end under Dr. Paul. Entreprenuers, small business people all over the country are producing clean energy from numerous sources and (without gov't interference and over-regulation) they could compete in the free market. He introduced the 2005 and the current 2007 Hemp Farming Bill. We could grow enough Industrial Hemp (Low THC, non-drug variety of Cannabis) on currently vacant land that is not suitable for other crops to completely end our need for coal or for foreign oil. Over 25,000 "green" products can be made from hemp. Hemp is extremely well suited for new technologies in biomass/biofuel. It's yield per acre is as much as 100 times that of corn, doesn't need chemicals to grow, and actually re-nourishes the soil, so it can be used as a rotational crop. Every part of the plant can be used for everything from paper to clothes to building products and car parts. Other countries are already using hemp, but we have to import it from Canada (which is why it's so expensive now), while our farmers get paid to let fields sit idle. Hemp can be grown in every state and small (compared to refineries and power plants) processing plants would sprout up to process the locally grown hemp into fuel and other products. The fuel would only have to be trucked locally, instead of across the country and across the world. The cost would be much cheaper, the infrastruture is already there, and the economy would explode with all of the new jobs.

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!

by MJ777 at 8:29 AM on 08 Aug 2007

Ron Paul: a little GREEN, in a big way

Topic is "How Green Is Your Candidate?"

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.

by tuxman at 10:08 AM on 08 Aug 2007

Candidates "Positions"

Thanks for all your hard work and research. I was a reporter for a long time and know how exhausting it can be. Fortunately, there's more than a year until the election. A lot of time for these losers to wise up or a real independent (Unity '08) to emerge as a truly progressive environmental candidate.

http://schreinervideo.blogspot.com

by schreinervideo at 3:52 PM on 08 Aug 2007

Keep repeating the Dennis can't get elected meme,

and you'll probably get people to believe you.

But, unfortunatly, that's probably the point.

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

by rjones2818 at 9:03 AM on 11 Aug 2007

Oceans our saviour

Finally I am reading some recognition of the vast unlimited clean energy possible by tapping the ocean currents, waves and thermal differentials. All others pale in comparison when one thinks about it. This is harnessing the moons gravitational force with the very simple technology of turbines. Without dismissing the valuable contribution of wind, similar technology applied to ocean currents allows us to capitalize on the 800 x greater density of the water medium over that of air. This allows turbines slowly moving at the speed of the current and using simple gears to rev up to electric generators.

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

by adobie at 11:30 AM on 14 Aug 2007

green candidates

Not one candidate has yet to address the real problem-- overpopulation. When will one of them suggest a taxplan which will not give deductions based on dependents? Let´s start addressing the real problem and not just the symptoms.

by bailsout at 7:40 AM on 16 Aug 2007

More interviews???

For quite some time, this site has been promising interviews with more candidates. Can we see them soon?

by SolarBozo at 6:13 PM on 05 Dec 2007

As I see it:

I agree. I have heard Edwards now in several tv interviews on shows like Meet The Press, George Stephanopolis' show, and such. When, in his narratives, he lists his key issues, he has always mentioned climate change. These are very brief interviews and not on shows targeting any particular audience. So, it impresses me that he makes a point to mention that issue. And, he has real substance to back up the sound bite.

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

by Greta at 5:06 PM on 02 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

Hilary said..

...just yesterday to "warm up your cars" to encourage voters in Iowa to go out and vote. Is a person who thinks that it is NECESSARY to warm up your car (rather than tell people to DRESS warmly) that much of a progressive thinker? How far can her environmental policies go if negative personal habits are light-heartedly accepted and even supported? This is most likely just something people just say. As it is, I am pretty certain it is somewhat of a reflection of her general attitude and I am disappointed. I do not expect perfection but I do expect that people eliminate certain stupid habits and watch what they say if they run for office. At least when they talk and millions listen.

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

by PolluteLessDotCom at 2:24 PM on 03 Jan 2008

reporters wearing blinders

Howdy Grist People:

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.

by wiscidea at 8:37 AM on 09 Jan 2008

as much as i hate to say it...self-sufficiency

I know a great many of you think this(self-sufficiency) is probably a terrible idea, and would regress us all, and I don't hate to say it, but I just don't think i will be taken seriously. I know, I know! Throw the books at me! Well Ive had many environment classes, I'm a senior in an environmental health science degree program and its recently dawned on me more than ever that perhaps the real, true, absolute, and yes easiest way to deal with the problems of the environment, especially climate change, is to use our own muscles to perform so many of the tasks being performed by machines and other systems that require energy otherwise, and just plain stop using SO MUCH electricity. It's one thing to try to cut down on emissions, but what about we as a society? What about changing our behavior, lifestyles, habits, and to ultimately limit our indulgence and OUR addictions to oil individually. NO ONE ever brings these ideas up as solutions, but they are the most basic, easiest ones to achieve, and that is what we as human beings were created to do any ways! Not burn fossil fuels all day. We have two arms two legs etc. to use, so we should put them to use and men should become men again, women become women and take over our lives. We eat too much, waste away our lives on the sofa consuming more and more. I'm sorry but no politician promise can help us, we must help ourselves. Relying on politician's is too much of a crutch and a "lazy" way out. I'm not saying that pushing politicians for policy change is bad but they can only and will only do so much. Just think about all the energy wasted every day by electronic products that could be done by hand; televeisions and mp3 players and dvd players and hadtv's with hdtv cable boxes, all the production of these devices which only last so long before people will once again buy new ones to consume even more. It's a vicious cycle that is getting no where because we must break our addictions and habits first. I could write on and on, so this is very brief but few examples I thought of which could change the climate by following some simple changes. Just think one second...Perhaps burning fossil fuel just wasn't meant to be!? I truely and desperately think we need to have more drastic electricity regulations throughout the land. And we need to change how much and how many of us drive. Bicycles anyone? ok im going to stop rambling. I could go on forever.

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?

by burr83 at 12:39 AM on 16 Jan 2008

Carbon offsets for campaigns

We have made offsets available to congressman through a political campaign worksheet http://www.standardcarbon.com/campaignpacket.pdf

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

by StandardCarbon at 5:18 PM on 23 Jan 2008

Can't See the Forest for the Trees

So. You think McCain is green? The guy who said "There will be more wars," and that America could be in Iraq for "100 years"?

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.

by leitaimei at 10:33 AM on 30 Jan 2008

green party and independents

Please add the Green Party candidates and known independent candidates. The Green Party has its own primary, and as we get to the national election, it will be crucial to compare the candidates across the board.

by promiserani at 9:36 AM on 31 Jan 2008

I am happy to see

that Obama is subject to pressure on green issues. He's been a little lax about how he plans to "change" the approach we have, so we all have some "hope".

by AuntBeth at 2:25 PM on 06 Feb 2008

I actually thought Hillary

addressed making changes quite effectively during her address to the climate change forum sponsored by The Gris.

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

by AuntBeth at 12:29 AM on 07 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Green Party candidates need to be included

I noticed I'm not the only one who is requesting this but still not seeing any movement.
Having an opposition party, even if the candidates aren't a slam dunk to win the White House, is still important.

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!

by MuddPi at 2:02 PM on 11 Feb 2008

Ignoring most environmental issues, too.

Grist, the League of Conservation Voters and most other environmental groups (to say nothing of the mainstream media) are not only ignoring most candidates, but they are ignoring every single environmental issue except one. If it doesn't relate directly to global warming.

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...