Maybe you can write a better question, but here's mine:

"Environmental justice has been considered in government decisions ever since President Clinton signed an executive order requiring government agencies to consider how environmental impacts affected minority and low-income populations. However, this executive order does not have the force of law. As President, what would you do to ensure that environmental burdens do not disproportionately affect the most vulnerable, and do you believe that Congress should pass laws to address environmental inequalities?"

Ask them if they would support the impact of factory farming on the environment by going vegan.

What would they do as President to take advantage of the soil carbon opportunity? If you need some details of the opportunity see managingwholes.net

managingwholes.net

"Two-thirds of our fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions are from the generation of heat and power.  Meanwhile, the US electric grid hasn't improved their energy efficiency since 1957, and is less efficient today than it was in 1880 when Edison built his first power plant in Manhattan.  Since the problem clearly can't be technological, please tell me what your plan does to address energy efficiency in these two sectors."

Should the US discourage growth in areas of the US that are highly prone to natural disasters including hurricanes, wildfire, persistent droughts and water shortages, flooding and future sea level rise?  

"What would your administration do to encourage and expand public transit?  Would you encourage the development of walkable, transit-oriented communities?"

I find this is a rather telling question upon which candidate I would support.

"A two part question"

"If you could only choose one, which issue do you believe deserves the higher priority:
Dealing with Peak Oil. Or. Dealing Global Warming."

"Similarly, which is more important:
Changing our fuels, or changing our cars."

Or just go with

"If you could only choose one, which issue do you believe deserves the higher priority:
Dealing with Peak Oil. Or. Dealing Global Warming."

Scientific evidence indicates that less than an 80% reduction in CO2 levels by 2050 could result in a global temperature increase of more than two degrees Celsius (°C).  This could result in the extinction of many species and melt the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, causing sea level to rise between 12 and 40 feet. How will you get America to reduce its CO2 levels by 80% by 2050?

Do you support Lieberman-Warner? Why or why not?

If the bill passes (as it currently exists), what would you do as president to try to amend it during your term?

Considering both the moral and political arguments behind why the US should commit significant funding to developing countries for adaptation efforts, I would recommend the following question:

"Recent scientific reports have highlighted the dire impacts that global warming will have on our planet and its people.  The United States is responsible for the largest share of emissions in the atmosphere, and yet those most at risk from the impacts of our emissions are the world's poorest countries.  Would you support providing new and significant funding to developing countries to help them adapt to these impacts of climate change and increase their reliance on clean, renewable energy?"

Sea water uranium can support 10 billion people at the U.S. level  for 400 years, with no mining, using first generation reactors, and over 30,000 years with breeders.

Agricultural bio fuels consume topsoil, potash, lime and phosphate deposits at a rate that will expend them long before we run out of uranium.

But we cannot eat uranium, so why are biofuels "renewable" and uranium not?

No doubt you are aware of the international scientific consensus that to avert disastrous temperature rise we need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions in the next few decades.

Currently 20 states have enacted renewable portfolio standards with varying targets and target dates.  Some include energy efficiency in their definitions, and some don't.

Beyond simple enactment of a national renewable portfolio standard, what specific steps will you take to wean America from coal-fired electricity and encourage renewables and efficiency?  

Which renewables do you believe hold the most growth potential for the immediate future?

How will you re-direct public funds to accomplish this transition?
 

...and Hillary about her cleavage.  Just kidding.

Ask if they'll reinstate the Equal Time law so that anti-environmental propaganda won't ever again gain the foothold it seemed to with global warming.

Then ask Edwards how hot he thinks Kucinich's wife is - scale of 1 to 10.  I kid...because I love.

Public transit and transit-oriented development are key steps to making us less dependent on oil - and unfortunately those subjects are usually forgotten.

How will you repair the damage that the Bush administration has done to the federal government's scientific agencies?  

--- meander

All of the worthy issues previously mentioned could be dealt with if we could first get a leash on corporate power.

Will any of the candidates finally return our our government to being by, of and for the people?

To all: Have you committed any of your personal wealth to renewable technology?

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

To Presidential Candidates:

Americans unfortunately are burdened with the introduction of thousands of new chemicals on a yearly basis.  The burden of proof is not on the manufacturers of these chemicals (pesticides, cosmetics, plastics, etc.) but on the public.  It is not until there is an identifed hazard that the product/chemical gets pulled from the market and sometimes that doesn't happen.

As President, would you address this issue?  Would you change the burden of proof to the manufacturer and stop allowing citizens to be the guinea pigs?

As the 80% by 2050 need not a national one, How are other countries going to take our negotiations when   our cumulative footprint is so huge compared to other country.(As compared to the unbalanced enough annual) Doesn't our country need to go significantly beyond the 80 by 50 rule? as we live in global world where nuclear power shouldn't give a monopoly on the air rights?

Currently, escaped Burmese Pythons,which can grow to over 20 feet, are reproducing and causing havoc in the Everglades. Yet, it is still legal to import this species and the US Fish and Wildlife Service says it doesn't have the funding to go through the process of banning importation. This situation is not unusual with noxious plants and animals. Rarely are control measures taken until after an invasive plant or animal is introduced and becomes a pest.
Do you support strengthening the laws  and increasing funding to protect america's biosecurity?

Steve E.

US Fish and Wildlife Service contiually pleads that it lacks the funding necessary to list all of the plant and animal species that qualify for protection under the endangered species act. Yet, the agency never asks for sufficient funding to take care of the backlog. Would you provide the needed funding and appoint an agency director who will be a strong advocate for protection of our biological heritage?

Steve E.

Is global warming/emissions the problem or a symptom of the problem?

(also, how come you didn't step up to the plate in 2004?)

Today the world's population faces major challenges: the stockpile of nuclear weapons, the spread of small arms, fundamentalism and violence, and the degradation of the land, air and waters of the planet. All are important but one could argue that the many problems with the global environment are the most critical. What is your understanding of the reasons for the degradation of the planet and as president how would you lead to reverse it?

When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. John Muir

We know now, that there will be no way to avoid a global climatic catastrophe that does not break the impasse between the rich world and the aspiring world and make rapid action possible.  

To break this impasse, the US will have to step up to the obligations incurred by its great wealth and great ecological debt (extra credit if you actually use this term).  

Leaving aside the details, how would you help to prepare the ground?  How would you help the American people to understand that their fates. and their interests, are tied to the fates and interests of the poor and the innocent around the world?

Tom Athanasiou (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_6pzH6nP2Xz').innerHTML = output; //]]>

Many of our environmental problems, including global climate change, stem from our habit of overconsumption and overproduction. In a country where consumerism is a status symbol, do you think that radical changes need to be made in the way we live in order to "save the environment?" If so, what changes do you propose? If not, how do you propose we reconcile our living habits with global climate change and other environmental issues?

BILL HANNAHAN wrote: What is the optimum population for spaceship earth?

I figure it might be something like half a quadrillion. That would provide one square-meter of surface-area per person. If they were stacked one kilometer thick, each person could then have 100 square-meters of horizontal area to himself.