Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Green Is Your Candidate?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:14 AM
Original message
How Green Is Your Candidate?
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 11:15 AM by RestoreGore
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/

And do you really care how green they are? BTW, are both Obama's and Clinton's campaigns carbon neutral like John Edwards's was? After reading this take a look at the comments. Some are very interesting. Unfortunately, I think we lost the truly greener candidate in this horserace already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. kick before it falls off the map
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. Keith speculated on a Obama Edwards ticket. Might get our green
man in there anyway. (I can dream)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. You really think that?
Frankly, I don't know if he would take VP again. If he is going to join any administration, I would hope he would be AG or something even better than that. As VP he probably would be stifled like Al Gore was regarding this issue and others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow, people really don't care about this issue...
I guess because Mother Nature doesn't endorse anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. dupe
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 07:47 PM by RestoreGore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for this RestoreGore.
K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. You're welcome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ncliberal Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks for the link.
I never thought Edwards was given enough credit for his environmental policy or actions. His campaign was carbon neutral and his house is Energy Star rated. He drives Hybrids.

I loved his environmental policies. His plan for "green collar" jobs was terrific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yes it was and I have moved from sadness to anger at the thought he was not allowed to implement it
He was also the only candidate against nuclear as well. Truly visionary in its scope considering the fact of how stuck this country is regarding trying to find new ways to use antiquated methods instead of thinking outside the box beyond the status quo. I suspect in time others may come to regret that he dropped out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no name no slogan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Kucinich and Gravel were/are also against nuclear power, too
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. yes, and they were"neutralized" as well... speaks volumes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toadzilla Donating Member (814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's a shame.
I think we'll have to see a lot more real suffering before anyone tries to do anything about climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. That sucks! It never had too be this way, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toadzilla Donating Member (814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. off topic, but your doggie is adorable...
almost as adorable as mine!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
14.  And by then it will be too late....
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 08:29 PM by RestoreGore
And yet another debate last night where the urgency of it was not even mentioned. I truly am beginning to believe that it will be the states, organizations, corporations that go green, and individuals that make necessary changes that will make the most progress on this in this country. It seems Europe and other countries oversees take this much more seriously than our politicians do, and that is at our peril. As the Arctic continues to melt at such an accelerated rate that we may only have three to four years to get our act together, our very survival as a species doesn't rate important in all of this political muck. It simply boggles my mind, but then to truly take the evasive action we must to tackle this now, we must take on those corporations standing in the way and those like EXXON that still report record profits... so I suppose we will have to invest in some row boats if we are waiting for that to happen...or at the very least keep pushing at all levels to remind politicians of how truly urgent this is. it isn't just a soundbite where we now say 80% reductions bu 2050 and that settles it... this is about the continued sustainability of our planet now, and frankly, 2050 is simply not good enough anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toadzilla Donating Member (814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I think it already is too late personally.
I really believe that that may be one of the reasons Gore sat this one out. At this point, we can try to slow it down, but we cant stop it. Every time new studies come out the picture is looking more and more grim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
17.  yes, and Mr. Gore already spoke on how much worse the scenario is,,,
But as the IPCC has stated, we still have time... if we start now. But depending on humans to be able to handle the moral will involved in doing so is where the problem lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toadzilla Donating Member (814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. even if we go carbon nuetral tomorrow
there is still enough carbon in the atmosphere to warm the planet for another 100 years or so. add that to the fact that the earths population is not going to stop growing.

were screwn!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
27. True, but we still must cap carbon to mitigate further catastrophic effects
Capping carbon and planting lots of trees would go a long way in starting to mitigate what is already up there. But yes, even if we stopped tomorrow, climate change has already been put into motion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well, I'm supporting Obama...
So I guess that I'm supporting the best of what's left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
12.  No offense, but that isn't saying much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I know. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tandem5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. kick nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YankeyMCC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick
to take an optimistic view of why this critical issue is not getting much attention I think it is because the is so little difference between the Dem candidates, and in particular between Clinton and Obama now. Hopefully it'll get more attention in the general election.

But unfortunately with the economy in the shape it is in people may be more focused on that percieved immediate issue and the climate and ecological crises will continue to be ignored.

I thought Edwards was the 'greenest' but obviously he's not a choice now and now I'm not 100% which of the two I'm going to support now. I'm leaning towards Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
23. Biden had an excellent record on the environment from passing legislation
for li-ion batteries, to protecting the beaches of DE from being developed by corporations - and everything inbetween.
He had one of the highest ranking of the candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
24. green enough for Teresa
When John and I were researching our book, This Moment on Earth, we spoke with hundreds of people across the country who are forming the modern core of today’s environmentalism. One of these was Cheryl Osimo, of the Silent Spring Institute (a non-profit scientific research organization in Massachusetts dedicated to identifying the links between the environment and women's health, especially breast cancer).

Cheryl became an environmental activist for a very personal reason: she was diagnosed with breast cancer and she started to look for answers. Their ground-breaking work found a link between estrogen-mimicking compounds in pesticides and higher incidences of breast cancer.

I’ve worked on environmental issues for over 25 years, and I’ve learned time and again about the nexus between our environmental crisis and our own health. From the warming of our planet to the toxic chemicals in our homes, the state of our environment is affecting us and our health more and more every day.

So when I was thinking about which Presidential candidate I would support, I knew I could only choose someone I believed would bring about the change we need in our national policy on environmental issues.

I know I found that candidate in Barack Obama.

I support his environmental policies. I know a bit about what is required to bring about change. There a lot of good people who care about environmental issues but who do not have the transformative quality or the capacity to break the barriers currently facing this nation. Barack Obama does.

I’ve looked at his record, and I’ve observed his career, and he has a leadership ability that is rare in public life. He is, in many ways, a lot like my husband. He’s a leader who listens, and a listener who unites.

At this critical moment for the Earth, we absolutely need someone who can fundamentally change the rules of the game to make new possibilities out of the old stalemates, to bring together the many in order to challenge the few.

The crisis of our environment, the crisis of our health -- these can’t wait any longer. We need broad, systemic change, and Barack Obama can achieve it. He can reshape our environmental debate, and he can bring about the new policies we need.

Barack Obama has the highest lifetime rating from the League of Conservation of anyone in the Presidential field. He worked with my husband on the landmark legislation to begin to increase fuel efficiency in our cars and trucks and revolutionize the way America drives. I was impressed with his courage and candor when he went to Detroit to tell the automakers, to their faces, that they needed to do better; Barack knows when to work with people, and when to challenge them.

Science is personal to me, like Barack. Barack is firmly dedicated to restoring scientific integrity to the White House. As the Silent Spring Institute has found in the link between breast cancer and toxins in our environment, the scientific community has made great advances in understanding the really large amount of toxins that are part of our everyday lives.

But the complete disregard for science by our current administration has not only twisted our environmental policy, but it has also held back the scientific community’s efforts to get a better handle on the causes and solutions of our environmental crises. Barack Obama is committed to reversing this trend and turning the full weight of our country’s scientific community toward this cause.

Barack’s background as a community organizer, working among the poorest of our nation, has led him to another aspect of environmentalism that is often ignored, but is so important to me: environmental justice. John and I wrote about this issue in This Moment on Earth, and we saw the effects of the environmental degradation in some of our country’s most vulnerable neighborhoods.

Barack will bring the lessons and experience of his days going door to door in some those vulnerable neighborhoods, and he will work hard to correct these inequities. I believe this because Barack is a man of action, he wants results. He understands how communities try to cope and survive and that knowledge is paramount to success.

Barack Obama has the wisdom of experience and the knowledge from scientific inquiry to bring a deep understanding of our environmental challenges to his role as President.

With that outlook, Barack Obama knows the problems we face and the solutions we must adopt. His plan to deal with climate change incorporates the best science in demanding an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050, and it works on the basis of "polluter pays," where polluters pay based on the amount of pollution they emit. And he’ll reinvest $150 billion in developing clean, affordable energy in the United States.

America needs a President who will take the lead on environmental protection. We have waited too long for a new direction – we need to finally begin moving forward – and I believe that by working to elect Barack Obama, we can take a giant step forward in our quest for a cleaner, safer environment.

I hope you’ll join me in supporting Barack Obama for President.


Thank you,

Teresa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Well, good for "Theresa"
Edited on Fri Feb-01-08 11:16 PM by RestoreGore
However, this letter outlines nothing about his policy. Just a nice letter because her husband endorsed him. The link in the OP is what is real. And since he supports nuclear (which in a world of water scarcity is just not feasable besides all the other problems associated with it,) that is definitely not a mark in his favor with me and that is important to me... Also, his support of liquid coal surely is not environmental nor backed by environmental organizations. So should he get in we shall see if he tells the nuclear lobby to get out of Washington DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #25
35. And to think all the Obaminites
were thinking Gore would endorse Barack...silly thoughts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Green enough for Teresa and Grist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #26
28.  Good, then Theresa can vote for him
I reserve the right to think for myself, and to seek more proof that his environmental credentials are legitmately sincere since he only backtracked on liquid coal a bit when pressured about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Why do you keep misspelling her name? It's Teresa! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. And? Not relevant to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. And what about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Looks like a site prone to mistakes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Well, that's nice. Now let's hope to see some action from the words
Those already in Congress should have been doing so. I haven't seen any bill calling for no new coal plants... matter of fact, they gave more to the nuclear industry and cut funds for alternate energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC