How Green Is Your Candidate?

They say "when the U.S. sneezes the world catches a cold." Well, right now the essence of that statement seems to be true, but I equate the U.S. situation as it pertains to climate change rather with another bodily function that does actually release harmful green house gases and that has the rest of the world gagging and turning blue from holding their breath as a result.

The United States is the number one or number two (depending on what you are looking at), polluter of green house gases in the world with over 6 billion annual tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere. About 22% of the world total. The current administration has been one of the slowest to recognize this issue and it's time for a change. A change that will hopefully will come in November. So after the last 8 years of the United States being the big fat bully that nobody likes now fingers seem to be pointing to us as they realize who created that awful smell.

That's the situation. What do we do now?

Climate control is the largest movement in humanity that affects all living creatures on earth... except presidential candidates! If Enviro-campaigning in 2008 were a drinking game I would be dead sober. Don't get me wrong, the candidates are all green. Unfortunately they're green about being green!

Without getting mired too deep into the details they seem to "tow the line" and regurgitate phrases that some advisor tells them to. Nothing new about that trick, but a little frightening considering the lack of self thought! The problem for the candidates is 55% of Americans believe that Global Warming is having an immediate harmful impact on the earth and 86% have already participated in some sort of "Green" activity like conserving energy, buying a hybrid etc. There seems to be a pattern here. I find it a little odd that the "Green Base", who vaulted Al Gore from post Vice Presidential obscurity to Mega Climate Change Champion, are begging him to run are not even being noticed by the real candidates. With the numbers I mentioned above you would think there would be fist fights for a Gore endorsement and the votes of his followers. I haven't seen that yet. What is going on? Yes! healthcare, the war and social security are critical issues and need to be addressed, but why only fleeting mentions of climate change? I'm not sure if they all realize how big a money maker and job creator this movement will be.

Those presidential hopeful boys and girl should sharpen up the focus on how the U.S. will face the next four years. If not for the future of our children and planet earth, then at least for their candidacies.

As far as the "Green Base" is concerned that's the "Inconvenient Truth"!

Here is a link to the "Tale of the Tap" of all the Candidates and how they stand or stood!

The League of Conservation Voters

Comments

[jdm58]

This is part of my indeciciveness on the two remaining dem candidates. Hillary has a far better plan and record than Obama, when it comes to promoting a "green" economy, and with it greener environment. I was left wanting more from Obama when I read his responses on the LCV website, and on other issues as well. Factor in Bobby Kennedy Jr's endorsement of Hillary, with his impressive environmental background, and she should be the winner hands down. Also, Obama lobbying for Illinois to get the FutureGen coal plant, which was awarded to Mattoon Illinois until Bush changed the plans, leaves me wondering if he really gets what's at stake. But I also remember years of Bill Clinton backing down on issues they claimed to champion, like healthcare, GHG and climate change, and am left wondering which is worse. I am frustrated that the media has paid so little attention to this very important issue.

[Hunter45]

I wish fixing the enviornment were so easy as so many think. Like medicare, there are a substantial amount of problems that block such an ease of transition. Money being the main problem. Even if large corporations are each required to upgrade to cleaner sources, whether it be in manufacturing, transpo, etc., who do you think will eat the cost? Us if you're still wondering. Corporations are a small fish in the sea. The general populace will never be able to afford alternative cars, etc. And it is a nice thought to say that everyone should keep their thermostats at a certain low or high level, let us go ahead and admit that will never happen. Not to mention the U.S., though a big user of fossil fuels and so forth, is one country. China and India and everyone else want to have what we have. Who is to stop them. And please do not bring future children into the equation. Most of you don't care what your kids are doing right now, please don't pretend you care about their grandkids.

[Pdubya]

when blackwater is beating on your door and you can't travel to a foreign country because you're trying to get a relative out of a sanctuary city you don't give a crap about pissing in your neighbor's corner. of course, you could always buy your way out of trouble on the dollar that is worth $0.50 or on the Amero, tied to all of your other personal information.

[sheila]

What Global Warming Stampeders seem to forget is that there is more to the environment than carbon! Please keep in mind that almost all the utility-scale (ahem)"renewable" power plants you are pushing will kill an average of 10,000 acres of wilderness apiece (plus transmission, gas lines, groundwater depletion, etc.).

There is a better way, you know: TRULY sustainable energy policy which puts all our tax incentives onto our OWN ROOFTOPS, instead of in the pockets of wilderness-killing utilities, paired with sensible conservation programs. Not one inch of wilderness should be harmed until every roof in America is covered with panels and previously developed land like brownfields are used up for utility-scale projects.

We refuse to endorse KILLING THE WILDERNESS to stop greenhouse gases from KILLING THE WILDERNESS, so you need to be specific in what you want when you toss out "green," "renewable," "sustainable" or other marketspeak. Most of our government, and sadly, Sierra Club and NRDC are totally greenwashing this permanent death to the open spaces surrounding Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley and elsewhwere, while totally ignoring the rooftops/developed lands in equally stellar solar and wind areas!

The areas under seige for utility profits belong to all of us. They are NOT dead, flat, burned out ugly wastelands. They are vibrant, gold and green, boulder-studded, wildflower-strewn gorgeous places teeming with life and diverse species, and they cannot be destroyed without dire consequences to America and the planet any more than coral reefs, kelp forests, the Amazon, glaciers, etc.

PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING.

[January]

We have a dilemma that fits the origin of the term in Greek where it meant being caught between the bull's horns.

An economy that does not grow in quantity provokes panic. Witness the current effort to print more money and promote more debt. At the same time, a growing economy means that our limited resources will continue to be wasted and the unanticipated consequences of greater pollution will continue to be ignored.

When Jimmy Carter put on his sweater and turned down the thermostat, the MSM ridiculed him, as did the new Super Hero raygun. When Mondale argued in '84 that although raygun promised no more taxes, Mondale promised new taxes. He lost 49 states to raygun.

We need major surgery but the American electorate would rather die or diddle with symptoms. The only political party worth supporting is the one that will preserve the planet. The only economy worth supporting is the one that will preserve the planet. All the rest is toxic.