Turning the heat up - an environmental comparison

The League of Conservation Voters has been tracking where all candidates - Democratic and Republican - stand on 5 key issues related to the environment.  You can read a summary here:

http://heatison.3cdn.net/03947f376282772 998_i3m6bagcw.pdf

If you disagree with this factual summary, please take it up with the LCV and not me!  I have volunteered with them and respect their track record, and thus trust them as a source.

My thoughts from reading this:

- Republicans clearly don't get it.  Most of their candidates either haven't articulated positions or have opposed progress in at least 1 of the 5 areas analyzed by the LCV.  If Dems can tap into this issue, it's a clear distinguishing factor for us.  I think as another year passes before the election, people will be even more sensitive to this issue.

- Hillary is the most conservative of the Dems.  Her timetables and goals are less aggressive.  Realistically, none of the candidates will get everything they want, but starting with lower goals means we have less to give up during negotiations.  If the environment is near the top of your issues list, then Hillary shouldn't be your candidates.

- Obama isn't much better - only in 1 of the 5 measures does he improve over Hillary.

- Edwards is better in each of the 5 categories than Hillary and 4 of 5 compared with Obama.

- Richardson, to nobody's surprise, is the most progressive in this area.  Energy/environment clearly has been his platform for months and it may help him win the vote of hard-core greenies.

What they left off here was the liquid coal issue, which I had seen on an earlier version of this chart.  It wasn't favorable for Obama or Clinton - but perhaps as their stances changed, they decided to remove it from the chart too.

Personally, along with health-care, I believe this is the biggest issue facing us.  I want someone who will lead in both of these areas.  For me, that points to Edwards.

If there was a previous diary on this, sorry that I missed it.  Regardless, I believe this is such an important issue and it deserves continuous discussion.

Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Environment, green, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, LCV (all tags)



There is a structural loophole in the LCV format .

... and both Senators Obama and Clinton jump through it.

That is, as of May 4 of this year, both Obama and Hillary support the Sanders-Boxer bill for an 80% reduction by 2050, in line with the IPCC recommendations.

However, Obama was a co-sponsor of McCain-Lieberman on introduction, in mid-January, and Hillary joined as a co-sponsor later the same month. So both Obama and Hillary also support a 65% target by 2050, with up to 30% offsets outside the cap, meaning a target that could be as low as 46%.

So both Hillary and Obama can truthfully tell the LCV that they "support" an 80% reduction, while truthfully telling Big Coal that they "support" a reduction of less than half current CO2 emissions.

Clever, huh?

by BruceMcF 2007-09-03 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: There is a structural loophole ...

Good to know.  Just one more example of their less-than progresive positions on these critical issues.

I think if Edwards/Richardson play this the right way, it could make a difference in the primary.  In the general, any Dem should have a huge advantage.

by passionateprogressive 2007-09-03 06:19PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads