sunday times: how green are the candidates?

As the field narrows, various organizations are putting together scorecards for the presidential candidates on assorted issues. Here are some compilations focused on environmental issues.

The League of Conservation Voters is all about scoring and ranking lawmakers and provides some of the most thorough analyses of all.

• Clinton: Overview and in-depth profile. Overall score (based on key votes on environmental issues): 90
• Obama: Overview and in-depth profile. Overall score (based on key votes on environmental issues): 96
• McCain: Overview and in-depth profile. Overall score (based on key votes on environmental issues): 26 (not a typo)

The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) has summarized the positions of the candidates on science and technology, a bit beyond just energy and environmental policy.

• Clinton
• Obama
• McCain. Sparse, compared to the other two. I have to add while searching for information on the candidates and science, I came across an item describing how astonishingly superstitious McCain happens to be. A little scary, that.

The Grist -- table comparing the candidates on climate and energy issues. In this parsing, the Dems are essentially identical. There is also a fact sheet on each candidate:

• Clinton
• Obama
• McCain

Outside Magazine interviewed all the candidates, although the tidbits provided are...just tidbits. The interviews were done in partnership with Grist, and are a little more revealing.

• Clinton. Notes her backing of a lot of environmental legislation. Interview here.
• Obama. Highlights his clean energy platform, and mentions something that I think took guts: telling auto makers they'd have to get their heads out of their tailpipes and really raise fuel economy standards. That didn't sit well here, but it needed to be said (whether it can become reality is another matter). Interview here.
  
• McCain. At least he believes in climate change. Interview here.

Don't know what to make of the policy statements? The Union of Concerned Scientists outlines the critical issues.

Comments

[Nuthatch]

There was also an article in today's Washington Post about McCain's ad deriding a well-done scientific study of grizzly bear DNA. Each year McCain puts out a list of what he considers pork-barrel funding, and "he's shown a fondness for mocking money spent on dubious-sounding projects involving plants and animals." Ironically, his Montana campaign manager was a strong proponent of the bear research, and McCain voted for the bill that included funding for the project.

[John]

It's unfortunate that environmental issues have barely been a part of the debates. I think part of the reason the Democrats' platforms look so similar (and so biofuel laden) is that they have not had to argue about them. I'm glad Obama is calling for higher fuel efficiency, but I'm skeptical of his support for "clean coal" and coal-to-liquid. I'm not sure it's possible to make either happen.

[Lanny]

I'm envisioning McCain with a clown hat, huge floppy ears that reach the floor, and a feather balanced on his nose...

[Jochen]

I just read on the news that McCain considers "waterboarding" to be torture.
I am positively surprised...