The fact that Senators Clinton and Obama have "called" for steep reductions in greenhouse emissions does not mean they wil follow through. President Clinton "called" for environmental and workplace regulations with regard to NAFTA. Did they happen? I prefer to look at past voting records. You're being awfully naive to believe these people. The only one in the race whose been consistent on this issue is Nader.

Sorry, but just talking about small reductions in U.S. GHG emissions does not "meet scientific principles." When we need 80-90% reductions in the next 15-20 years it is irresponsible to talk about 40-60% reductions over 40-50 years. All three candidates lock us into likely extinction, the only difference is the amount of lip service.

Also, carbon taxes do not require the polluters to pay; all costs are passed on. True, efficient polluters will find larger margins, but all will continue the march into the abyss.

And how could anyone confuse cap and trade with a socially equitable solution to climate change? It will allow wealthy individuals to emit unlimited GHGs while only restricting the least wealthy 75%. How about real equity for a change? Personal quotas for liquid fuel and grid power could be implemented today and quotas on the carbon emissions of other consumer goods could be in place in less than a decade. Under non-tradable quotas we will all share the burden of managing the rate of climate change together.

On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy,

As much as I agree with ya in general, it should be pointed out that the statement isn't entirely true.  He did co-author one of the first bills that would've capped emissions on GHGs, had it actually passed.

Brad Johnson raises an important, in fact central, issue about energy, climate and politics: namely that good rhetoric is simply insufficient, we are well past the point where we personally, and our elected officials must 'walk the walk'.

In California, for example, we have climate policies on the books that call for a ~ 25% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (AB32), and 80% reductions by 2050 (Executive Order 3-05).  These are great words, and the politicians who penned them are truly to be commended, but we must make good on these targets.

The first step for action is having a plan, and in this respect I give California, the northeast/mid-Atlantic climate climate coalition, and the exciting, emerging, plan for the upper-Midwest.

This is where I have to disagree with Brad.

There is no doubt that McCain's 'green credentials' can be questioned.  Nevertheless,
he has shown a willingness to talk about and
even work on significant (even if insufficient) legislation.  As a result, I can't disagree more with the comment:

    * Like Bush, McCain's global warming talk is good -- both speaking in generalities about needing to be "good stewards" and get "serious" about climate change.

There has been absolutely no useful language from President Bush on this topic.  His international 'forum' on climate is even termed, within the administration, the 'dirty dozen' (well, dirty
11, with Australia defecting).

So, no question, Brad is right that McCain has both been vague and has not gone as far as is needed.  He is, however, part of a conversation that is far more enlightened that we have seen in federal office in recent times.  That is a start.

Dan Kammen Professor, Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley

This is a major dynamic - my fundamentalist, republican , military parents are now 100% behind Obama but they will not vote for Hillary if she's on the ticket.  End of story - 100's of 1000's or millions of other Reps feel the same - face it.  

I came up with this independently of that, but as a 100% leftist enviro wacko I will still vote McCain over Hillary if Obama isn't on the ticket.  I'm am more sick & tired of the DYNASTY - this Anti-American, Anti-Democratci, Anti-Founding Fathers BS we are faced with:  the Hatfields / McCoys Dynasty Struggle (i.e. Bush or Clinton for he last 32 years and possibly 36 to 40 years).  This is far worse than ANOTHER dumbass fascist (McCain) running us into the ground for another 4 years.    

None of your dream legislation (even Obamas') is going to do anything anyway for climate change when you don't forever end coal, go 100% toward renewable energy, phase out the oil, reign in the oil & war company profits, and combine it with so much other green & enviro legislation it would even make Nader & Kucinich spin.

And just quit talking about Nader - he shot himself in the foot, Gore through the heart, and America and the world through the head in 2000.   He put Bush in office and for what - to prove that Gore was the same as Bush- COME THE F$#@ ON!  He would've had SERIOUS footing in 2004 if he didn't run the FL election into the ground in 2000 and I will NEVER forgive him for it.  Especially in the face of Obama now...give the kid a break, he can at least give an hour speech without notes.  At least he's remotely inspiring and can begin working us back to a place where Nader, Kucinich, et al look reasonable instead of like goth kids at the prom. Slap yourself across the face Nader, and just keep pushing us domestically like you've done.  You're just not presidential material now.  

I will vote for my opponent (McCain) before Dynasty (Hillary)...and I will encourage anyone I know to do the same.

Kevin Caldwell Marshall NC