The successful presidential candidate will be responsible for leading his/her nation in reducing its carbon emissions, increasing its fuel efficiency standards, and developing its nascent clean energy industry. The president will also be charged with responding to parts of the country hit hard by climate change conditions, like droughts, fires, and storms.

Fortunately, voters won’t have to make their decision in the dark. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), a non-partisan organization that describes itself as "the independent political voice for the environment," has compiled a reference chart to show voters where candidates stand on climate change.

The following are the top five presidential candidates of 2008, based on the issue of climate change. In order to assess how serious candidates truly are about the issue of global warming, they are organized below according to how well they scored out of 100 on an overall evaluation of their environmental policies, starting with the highest scorer. (And no, Steven Colbert didn’t make the list, no matter how much natural gas he provides.)

Barack Obama (96) supports:

• 80% reductions of CO2 production by 2050.
• 50 mpg fleet-wide automotive standard by 2025.
• 25% renewable electrical energy standard by 2025.
• 50% reduction in energy intensity by 2030.
• Investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 10%; will consider standards that ban new conventional coal plants.

Dennis Kucinich (92) supports:

• 80% reductions of CO2 production by 2050.
• 40 mpg automotive standards; supported 33 mpg automotive standard in 2005.
• 20% renewable electrical energy standard by 2010.
• General energy efficiency, although he has no target specified.
• [Has no articulated position on new coal plants and liquid coal.]

Hillary Clinton (90) supports:

• 80% reductions of CO2 production by 2050.
• 35 mpg fleet-wide automotive standard by 2017.
• 20% renewable electrical energy standard by 2020.
• 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020.
• Investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%.

Joe Biden (84) supports:

• 80% reductions of CO2 production by 2050.
• 40 mpg fleet-wide automotive standard by 2017.
• 20% renewable electrical energy standard by 2020.
• 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020.
• Rejecting investment in liquid coal.

Bill Richardson (82) supports:

• 80% reductions of CO2 production by 2050.
• 50 mpg fleet-wide automotive standard.
• 30% renewable electrical energy standard by 2020 and 50% by 2050.
• 20% increase in energy productivity.
• A ban on new coal plants unless they capture and store emissions; he opposes liquid coal.

Readers may note that all of the preceding five leaders on environmental stewardship are members of the Democratic Party. They will be competing against one another to win their party’s nomination over the course of the primary elections, which will run from January to September of 2008. Make sure to register to vote several weeks prior to your state’s primary elections in order to vote to nominate your choice of presidential candidate.

Readers who align more closely with the Republican Party may also be interested to know which Republican presidential candidates are offering solutions to climate change. Most ‘08 Republican candidates have as strong a record of opposing environmental protection legislation and/or have no stated positions about the country’s energy goals and issues related to climate change. However, some Republican candidates are looking to support legislation that would benefit the climate. John McCain and Mike Huckabee lead their party on legislative forsight to address climate change. Even still, Mr. McCain has opposed fuel efficiency legislation and neither candidate has a stated position on coal. The only other candidate from this party to offer some hint of beneficial legislative promises on climate change is Mitt Romney, although he opposes fuel efficiency standards "as a stand alone measure," has no position on renewable energy, and supports liquid coal.

For more information on the positions of the 2008 presidential candidates on the environment, the energy industry, and climate change, see the resources listed below or visit the LCV reference chart for presidential candidates on climate change.

References and Resources:

Where the Candidates Currently Stand | League of Conservation Voters, Heatison.org

’08: On The Record | League of Conservation Voters

Presidential Candidates weigh in on Energy Policy | Solarnation

The Candidates | League of Conservation Voters, Heatison.org

Mike Garofalo’s Blog on the presidential candidates | GO

Photo Source:

White House Back | US Government

It would take a book to chronicle the eco-disaster that is the Bush Administration, and thankfully Robert F. Kennedy Jr. already wrote that book. If you're looking for a laundry list of Bush's environmental misdeeds, the NRDC can help with that, too. Here, we'll take a look at just a few of Bush's worst environmental offenses:

• The Kyoto Protocol - Even after promising to regulate carbon emissions in his 2000 campaign, Bush promptly pulled the U.S. out of the Kyoto Treaty shortly after taking office. Sure, Kyoto is flawed in some ways and would have required industrialized countries like the United States to re-prioritize and take immediate steps toward emissions reductions and renewable energy development. That was the point, wasn't it? But Bush didn't work to make the adjustments that would have made Kyoto a better and fairer agreement. He simply took his ball and went home.

• Cheney's Energy Task Force - In 2001, President Bush formed a task force to help him develop a national energy policy and appointed Vice President Cheney to head it. Their meetings were held in secret and most of the participants were not disclosed. Though many of the Task Force's documents have yet to be released completely uncensored, it is known that several of Bush and Cheney's old oil friends, including Enron's top brass, were influential contributors. It is also known that the Task Force's final recommendations heavily favored oil, gas, and coal companies. The Nation reported in 2002:

When Cheney and [Enron CEO Kenneth] Lay met in April 2001, Lay handed Cheney a three-page "wish list" of corporate recommendations. Representative Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform, ordered an analysis of the memo against the final report of the task force; it shows that the group adopted all or significant portions of the recommendations in seven of eight policy areas. Seventeen policies sought by Enron or that clearly benefit the company… were included.

The results of those recommendations are still Bush Administration policy today, which is no doubt why Bush and Cheney have fought so hard over the years to keep the full, uncensored records of the Task Force unavailable for public consumption.

• Renewable Energy Research and Development - This one is easy: Bush constantly uses the State of the Union address or other high-profile events to promote the idea of increased funding for renewable and clean energy, and then cuts that funding time and time again. This type of behavior inspired a popular book by the next Senator from Minnesota.

• Clear Skies, Healthy Forests - It's not just the condescending Orwellian language that has pushed progressive environmentalists to new heights of indignation, but also the genuinely awful policy changes that proposals like the Clear Skies initiative and the Healthy Forests Act reflect. "Clear Skies" does nothing to combat global warming and weakens a variety of existing laws and regulations on air pollutants. "Healthy Forests" takes the idea that no trees equals no forest fires and lets logging companies run with it.

These are just a few of the blights on the Bush enviro-record. There are many more. I invite you to use the comments below discuss which of Bush's crimes against nature make your head spin the most.

The response from the right to many progressive criticisms of Bush's environmental record usually takes the form of, "It's the economy, stupid!" There are two basic flaws with the "economy above all" argument. First, why is it assumed that the investments made in renewable energy technology, pollution reduction, (actually) healthy ecosystems, and so on, will result in no return on investment? We aren't talking about the Star Wars Missile Defense system. In the long run, green investments will pay off far more than building another coal-fired power plant or drilling another oil well in ANWR. We can grow the GDP without sacrificing the future. It's the sustainable economy, stupid!

Second, if you'll excuse my bleeding heart, what meaning does "strong economy" have if, in a generation from now, kids are fighting wars over the last reserves of drinkable water and smoking the equivalent of three packs of cigarettes a day just breathing? Sometimes the invisible hand has an equally invisible relevance. That is a concept that George W. Bush seems unable or unwilling to grasp even at its most fundamental level, and that inhumane, myopic view is clearly reflected by his almost total lack of genuine leadership on environmental issues.

Want to discuss Ryan and Jimmy's posts further? Visit the Red, Green and Blue discussion forum.