Greening The White House:
The Presidential Candidates & Global Warming

THE DEMOCRATS AND
GLOBAL WARMING

THE REPUBLICANS AND
GLOBAL WARMING

INDEPENDENT PARTIES
AND FAVORITE SONS

Are you frustrated with mass media election coverage? Do you find yourself voting for a candidate just because he or she is ahead in polls, or because your favorite candidate has been declared unelectable? You're not alone. According to Editor & Publisher magazine, 77% of the public wants the news media to cover more about the candidates' positions on issues, not handicapping the political horse race.

The media tends to cover candidates as celebrities, not as civic leaders. Instead of analyses of voting records and policy statements, often we're distracted by gossip, sexual escapades, who has the most expensive haircut, or who would be the best drinking buddy. "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election. And just one percent of stories examined the candidates' records or past public performance."

How should the next president deal with global warming? Last October, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 66% of the public wants the U.S. to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even unilateral action if necessary.

So, how do the candidates compare? The information is available, but all too often you have to wade through the "junk food news" to find it. We distilled the following summary statements from published articles, websites, and quotes from the candidates themselves.

While no one issue defines a candidacy—indeed, most Americans consider terrorism, the economy, illegal immigration, and healthcare each at least as important--responding to the challenge of climate change may well be the next president's most lasting legacy.

We trust that once you know where the candidates stand, you'll make a more informed choice come election day. —Bart Brodsky & Janet Geis

In 2007 the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of scientists representing 113 countries, reiterated a dire warning: Global warming is unequivocal, manmade, and industry carbon emissions must decline by as much as 80% in order to stabilize the Earth's climate. Democratic candidates have seized on IPCC's reports as evidence of a need for federal action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, push for higher fuel standards, and invest in energy alternatives.

The candidates' goals differ somewhat with respect to which alternatives to emphasize. Everybody cheers for solar and wind, but these technologies are not yet ready to replace oil. Several candidates support developing "clean coal," although the technology to sequester carbon gasses is still prohibitively expensive. Dirty coal, after all, is the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions in China.

Democrats are divided on nuclear energy, as are environmental activists themselves. The Democratic leadership remains critical of burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the backyard of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. When pressed, however, most contenders acknowledge a role for nuclear if safety issues can be addressed. Senators Clinton and Obama have joined a Republican contender, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs.

In contrast to their Republican opponents, Democrats generally would be more inclined to adopt carbon emissions taxes, invest more in renewables, emphasize conservation, and address the safety concerns of nuclear power critics.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR.

"The science is clear, and the physical consequences of global warming are obvious in shrinking polar ice caps, retreating glaciers, stronger storms, and changing rainfall patterns. We can expect rising sea levels, spreading diseases, and unpredictable, abrupt climate shifts. Even the richest nations will face huge costs coping with this challenge. The poorest nations will be hit the worst and will have the fewest resources with which to respond. This is a recipe for global resource wars, and even great resentment of our wealth by those less fortunate – a new world disorder. We must act."

Senator Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) has been a prominent voice calling for legislation to stop climate change. In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC report, Biden urged fellow lawmakers and President Bush to take action, saying, "We have wasted the past six years on the sidelines of international negotiations and our leadership is needed to produce a global solution." Biden would immediately direct U.S. negotiators to return to global climate change negotiations, to seek binding commitments among all major emitting nations – including emerging nations such as China and India – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that prevent catastrophic global warming.

Biden cosponsored the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" of 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

He also cosponsored the Clean Power Act of 2005, a bill which would have implemented a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions had it become law.

Senator Biden seems to be okay with nuclear power because he voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Biden was a cosponsor of the McCain/Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act and he voted for the nuclear-friendly Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. But he voted against Yucca Mountain (burying waste) and against other industry-friendly amendments to various energy bills.

HILLARY CLINTON

"The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming: we are causing the planet to warm, with potentially devastating consequences. We need to take immediate steps to address this problem. Critics contend that action will be too costly, but I believe that action is both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has declared that the United States should cut its consumption of foreign oil in half by 2025. She has outlined an ambitious national strategy of market-based tax incentives, an oil-profits tax, and more funds for research aimed at spurring conservation and development of alternative sources of energy.

She also cosponsored the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" in 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Clinton cosponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2000 to 2050 with a system of "tradable allowances." She recently signed on to the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which, if passed, will create a "market-based framework" to reduce carbon emissions.

Clinton opposes new subsidies for nuclear power but would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants. She would terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing safely of nuclear waste.

"I think nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution. We've got to be very careful about the waste and about how we run our nuclear plants, but I don't have any preconceived opposition."

Bill Clinton ran as an anti-nuke candidate in 1992, which shows how far the mainstream Democratic position has changed... along with the climate.

CHRISTOPHER DODD

"I believe that turning back the clock on global warming and reducing our dependence on foreign oil must be dual goals of any commonsense energy plan. Thankfully, there are existing and exciting new technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil while reducing global warming risks. My administration will focus on these technologies."

Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) says he supports legislation that would reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. His goals include reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, eliminating dependence on Middle East oil by 2015, and enacting a carbon tax. He would impose tough standards on new coal plants and raise auto economy to 50 mpg by 2017.

Dodd cosponsored the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" in 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

He also cosponsored the Clean Power Act of 2005, which would implement a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide emissions. That bill never became law.

Dodd is unambiguously pro nuclear power. "My record is clear. I have supported nuclear power and the obligation of the federal government to take responsibility for nuclear waste.... No one knows the costs and benefits of nuclear energy more than the residents of my state. Connecticut has two operating nuclear facilities and two permanently shut down facilities that are undergoing decommissioning. Nuclear energy provides more than 45 percent of the electricity generated in Connecticut."

JOHN EDWARDS

"Our generation must be the one that says, 'we must halt global warming'. If we don't act now, it will be too late. Our generation must be the one that says 'yes' to alternative, renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. Our generation must be the one that accepts responsibility for conserving natural resources and demands the tools to do it. And our generation must be the one that builds the New Energy Economy."

John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina, is running to the left of other major Democrats. Edwards' campaign was the first to propose a truly comprehensive plan to combat climate change, and would impose a cap to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050. "We can reduce dependence on electricity by 25 percent by the year 2025. We can actually create incentives—tax incentives and subsidies so that people use higher levels of conservation, use more energy efficient technologies in their homes and in their offices."

Edwards also plans to implement a "Green Collar Jobs" initiative that would train 150,000 workers a year for jobs in "the new energy economy."

Edwards would cap greenhouse pollution starting in 2010 and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050. He wants the U.S. to lead the world toward a new climate change treaty. Domestically he would create a $13 billion-a-year fund, financed by polluters, to be spent on renewable energy and other initiatives.

Edwards is the only major candidate unequivocally opposed to increasing reliance on nuclear power. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported that during a visit to that city in February, Mr. Edwards declared that atomic energy had no future in America. A spokeswoman for the candidate, Kate Bedingfield, said the report slightly overstated his position, but she added, "He does not advocate building additional nuclear power plants in the U.S."

AL GORE

Where's Al Gore? The 2000 Democratic presidential candidate turned global warming prophet says he isn't running for office in 2008. Ironically, this may have strengthened his influence among leading Democrats. When asked if she had any environmental heroes, Hillary Clinton replied "Al Gore." And Barack Obama said that Gore would figure prominently among his list of advisors in an Obama administration. Meanwhile, Gore has teamed with venture capitalists in a bold plan to transform our nation's entire energy infrastructure.

MIKE GRAVEL

"We must reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by passing legislation that caps emissions, and improve energy efficiency while generating energy from low-carbon sources.

However, any legislation will have little impact on the global environment if we do not work together with other global polluters."

Mike Gravel, former Alaska Senator, has called climate change "an issue of national security" and advocates immediate legislation capping carbon emissions. But he has criticized cap-and-trade programs, which he believes would not necessarily lower emissions. Instead,

Gravel supports a carbon tax, which would raise the price of gas to consumers, but would also help reduce the national debt.

Gravel's solution to climate change is to engage technocracy. He would initiate a massive effort, summoning the world's best scientific and engineering minds, to end energy dependence on oil and develop more sustainable sources. He also emphasizes international cooperation on climate change policy.

Despite his faith in scientific solutions, Gravel is not a friend of the nuclear industry. He wrote this in the Forward to Poisoned Power: The Case Against Nuclear Power Plants Before & After Three Mile Island:

"[N]uclear pollution is certainly a most serious threat to life. Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause cancer, it can cause babies to be born mentally or physically defective and it can cause increases in many serious illnesses like heart disease....

"Unprotected, above-ground nuclear power plants, loaded with radioactivity in their cores, would certainly be large liabilities if this country were ever under attack. They seem to make the country virtually indefensible...."

DENNIS KUCINICH

"America has a moral responsibility to lead on the issue of climate change since we create so many greenhouse gasses here and have a very large carbon footprint. We need to work with the world community to lower greenhouse gases, reduce the carbon footprint, to bring forth new energy technologies. The world is ready for this."

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has been one of the leading voices for legislation to stop climate change for the past several years. Kucinich has criticized President Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 addendum to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that calls for greenhouse gas reductions.

Kucinich would immediately put the United States in the forefront of solving the global warming crisis by rejoining the Kyoto accord and implementing its recommendations.

He would strengthen environmental laws, increase penalties on polluters, and accelerate the development of renewable energy technologies like wind and solar.

Kucinich acts upon his belief that protection of the global environment is fundamental to preserving the life of all species. He has worked for legislation to support the victims of Katrina. He has been honored by Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and the League of Conservation Voters as a champion of clean air, clean water, and an unspoiled earth.

Kucinich was an early critic of nuclear power as being risky economically, and environmentally, raising detailed questions about nuclear waste byproducts. He continues to challenge the nuclear industry's attempts to develop a waste site at Yucca Mountain because of safety issues:

"The transportation of this waste would require over 96,000 truck shipments over four decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainline railroad in the country would experience high-level waste shipments as waste is moved from reactors and other sites in 39 states...."

BARACK OBAMA

"The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."

Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) has put forth an ambitious cap-and-trade program that would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Notably, Obama is the first major presidential candidate to propose that 100 percent of the initial emission permits be auctioned rather than freely allocated, a policy favored by analysts but not so much by the polluters looking for free credits.

"Businesses don't own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution," Obama said. Auctioning the permits would raise a considerable amount of money, which Obama would spend on energy R&D, "green jobs" programs for low-income workers, and a clean energy venture-capital fund. Obama would also give automakers health care assistance in exchange for their investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Obama cosponsored the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, which would require the U.S. to reduce its emissions by 2050 to 80 percent below 1990 levels, as well as the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2000 to 2050.

With eleven nuclear power plants providing about half the state's power, the Illinois senator predictably supports nuclear, but with qualifications. According to campaign spokesman Jennifer Psaki, "Barack Obama feels we must address three key issues before ramping up nuclear power, including the public's right to know, security, and waste storage. Nuclear power represents the majority of non-carbon generated electricity therefore making it unlikely that it will be taken off the table."

BILL RICHARDSON

"This planet is revolting against the use of fossil fuels and against manmade pollution. And we have to fight global climate change. And we have to have an international effort to do it. And it means mandating the reduction of carbons and caps and emissions and the pollution that comes from fossil fuels and vehicles. It has to happen."

As Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson entered his state into a five-state agreement that includes Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington, to lower greenhouse gases regionally. "In New Mexico, we're the first state that followed the Kyoto Treaty. Maybe our country isn't, but we did."

The former secretary of energy says that reduction of carbon emissions should be mandated. He would reduce oil imports from around 65% to 10-15%, in part by getting the 100 mpg car into the marketplace. He supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2050.

Richardson is not enthusiastic about nuclear power, expressing concern about waste, cost, and safety. However, he accepts its usefulness in the energy mix: "The nuclear option has to be on the table -- not, however, at the expense of investments in renewable energy and technologies, which I believe hold more promise. But because nuclear power emits hardly any greenhouse emissions, and because its technology is improved, you have to look at it as an option. My worry is that there will be such a rebound in nuclear energy that we will not do the necessary investments in renewable technology and distributed generation and fuel cells."

Although most Republican leaders have acknowledged—albeit reluctantly—the threat posed by climate change, their solutions vary significantly from Democrats. In 1981, incoming President Ronald Reagan removed perfectly good solar panels from the White House roof that Jimmy Carter had installed during the nation's first "energy crisis." Reagan also terminated solar tax credits, practically bankrupting that fledgling industry. His message was perfectly clear: Raise the thermostat—it's business as usual.

When Republican candidates address global warming, it is usually within the context of national security and energy policy. To the extent that climate change could destabilize foreign suppliers, energy independence becomes a top priority. Most Republican candidates advocate oil drilling in Alaska and off-shore, developing clean coal technologies, and ramping up nuclear power. Conservation is rarely mentioned.

Still, within G.O.P. ranks there are sharp divisions. Most Republican candidates have been wary of embracing federally mandated controls on greenhouse gas emissions, preferring instead to emphasize voluntary industry compliance. Senator John McCain of Arizona, however, earns his reputation as a maverick Republican, advocating capping CO2 emissions and establishing higher fuel economy standards.

Appealing to religious conservatives, former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas has cast the issue of environmental stewardship in spiritual terms. Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo, another social conservative, has made headlines by blaming immigrants for causing global warming—if it exists in the first place.

In contrast to their Democrat rivals, Republicans generally view global warming in the context of economic and national security. They consider carbon taxes economically unwise. They are more attracted to large-scale solutions—nuclear, clean coal, biofuels—than decentralized renewables such as solar and wind.

RUDOLPH GIULIANI

Giuliani #1: "I do believe there's global warming, yes. The big question has always been how much of it is happening because of natural climate changes and how much of it is happening because of human intervention.'' -- Feb. 12, 2007, during a speech to business leaders in Santa Clara, Calif.

Giuliani #2: "Whatever your scientific conclusion about global warming, whether it's man-made or it isn't or whatever, the reality is... if you don't have restrictions on China [and] India, our contribution, ultimately, is going to be minor. We could put all these restrictions on ourselves and have just as much arguable global warming. —March 26, 2007, on CNBC's Kudlow and Company

Giuliani #3: "I think we have to accept the view that human operation contributes to [global warming]. And... as a matter of national security... we should be supporting all the alternatives. We need a project similar to putting a man on the moon." —June 3, 2007, Republican presidential candidates debate

Former New York Mayor Giuliani has been slow to acknowledge the reality of climate change. Giuliani's campaign website link "On The Issues" doesn't even mention environment or global warming, but instead focuses on terrorism, fiscal discipline, abortion, the second amendment, and other hot-button social issues.

Giuliani opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. He would make it a priority to wean the U.S. off foreign oil, "diversifying our energy portfolio." He supports clean coal, biofuels, ethanol, and expanding nuclear power.

Environmentalist critics note that Giuliani has ties to a law firm that lobbies for coal-fired power plants, heavy greenhouse gas emitters. The firm played a significant role in persuading the Bush administration to roll back major provisions of the Clean Air Act.

MIKE HUCKABEE

"Achieving energy independence is vital to achieving success both in the war on terror and in globalization. Energy independence will help guarantee both our safety and our prosperity. We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass."

When asked about his opinion on climate change in a March 2007 interview with Newsweek, former Arkansas Governor Huckabee said, "It's a spiritual issue. [The Earth] belongs to God. I have no right to destroy it." In a Denver Post interview, Huckabee got more specific, saying, "We ought to be moving rapidly towards energy sources that don't have a greenhouse gas effect. Aggressively set the goal that within a ten-year period, we should move a way from a fossil fuel culture to one that has alternative energy resources."

Huckabee has populist credentials to match his rhetoric. As governor he signed into law the Arkansas Renewable Energy Development Act of 2001, which requires electric utilities to offer net metering for alternative energies, enabling customers generating more electricity than they use to run their electric meters backward.

Huckabee would support new R&D into energy alternatives: "We not only need to end our dependence on foreign oil, we need to end our dependence on oil, period."

Despite his nods to alternative energy, the devil may be in Huckabee's details: "In the meantime, we need nuclear, hydrogen, [oil drilling in] ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] and the Outer Continental Shelf."

DUNCAN HUNTER

"Few people in global warming can tell you exactly what's happening. And there is a difference in opinion as to how fast because ice ages have come and gone, how much of the country would be warming, how much the glaciers are receding -- how much of that is attributable to mankind, and how much of it is attributable to the natural cycle? But I don't think you have to answer that question to do what I've recommended. I think we have lots of reasons to be energy independent."

Congressman Duncan Hunter (D-CA) is running as a social conservative, and global warming seems to be off his radar. We found only one reference to "environment" on Duncan Hunter's official website: "I firmly believe that marriage is one of the most important social institutions we have and that it is central to promoting family values and raising children in a healthy environment."

Hunter has a voting record that may not inspire environmentalists. He voted in favor of Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dumping (2006), voted against increased AMTRAK funding (2006), voted yes to deauthorize a "critical habitat" for endangered species (2006), and voted yes to accelerate forest thinning projects (2003).

And yet, Hunter voted yes on an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which would have raised automobile fuel standards to 33 mpg by 2015.

As president, Hunter says he would set a goal to move away from fossil fuels. He would also reduce taxes to zero for alternative energy sources.

ALAN KEYES

"I share the conviction of many that the earth is the Lord's and that we as God's stewards must care for its well being. However, translating this weighty obligation into good public policy is no simple task. We should avoid the temptation of assuming, without further ado, that if it is our duty to care about something, we must necessarily put that something under government control."

Alan Keyes, a pro-life social conservative, is not convinced that global warming is manmade. Or that it is even a serious threat. "On the specific issue of global warming, I am impressed by a variety of empirical evidence that suggests we have little or nothing to fear...."

In any event, Keyes does not advocate international action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions: "Even if global warming turns out to be a real problem, the Kyoto Protocol would be the wrong solution."

Keyes' official campaign website doesn't even mention global warming or the environment, but directs readers to another site with a tersely worded comment that he would "reduce current federal regulations on the environment."

JOHN McCAIN

"Suppose we're wrong, and there's no such thing as greenhouse gas emissions, and we adopt green technologies. All we've done is give our kids a better planet. But suppose we're right, and do nothing? Then what kind of a legacy are we handing on to future generations of Americans? I think we ought to frame the debate that way."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the greenest Republican candidate as well as one of the most outspoken members of Congress on the issue of climate change. Environmentalist Bill McKibben said that McCain's Climate Stewardship Act, initially proposed in 2003, "managed to force the first real senate vote on actually doing something."

Senator McCain has said global warming would be one of three key issues for his presidency. Calling the Bush administration's lack of action against climate change "disgraceful," McCain supports a cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He opposes a carbon tax, however, fearing negative economic impact.

McCain embraces nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. The 2007 version of McCain and Lieberman's Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would take some of the money raised from auctioning emission allowances and make it available for loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants and R&D into new types of nuclear plants.

McCain did not address the issue of global warming during his 2000 presidential bid but has since been won over by the science. "I believe climate change is real... The overwhelming evidence is that greenhouse gasses are contributing to the warming of our earth, and we have an obligation to fix it." He still asserts that the U.S. was right to not join Kyoto, but that China and India should be persuaded to reduce greenhouse gasses "on our terms." He agrees with all other Republicans that reducing oil consumption is a national security priority.

McCain has been endorsed by Republicans for Environmental Protection for his climate policies, and he has shown that he can work effectively with Democrats on this issue.

RON PAUL

"I don't think everybody knows everything about global warming, because you have reputable scientists on both sides of that argument.... So, do you want to invade China to make sure they don't pollute? And what are you going to do about the volcanoes? They are all contributing factors to global warming."

"[E]nvironments are always better taken care of with strict property rights. Under property rights, you... ought to be able to stop a neighbor from polluting your land immediately. Just like if your neighbor dumped garbage in your yard, you could call the policemen; that's the way you should have protection of water and air."

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) trusts the free market system to take care of the environment. The best way to fight pollution is to privatize lands and then to uphold individual property rights. This one-time Libertarian Party candidate would end "all subsidies and special benefits to energy companies." In a Paul administration big oil may not get special favors, but R&D for renewables such as solar would be non-existent.

Paul would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and boost the use of coal.

He is a strong supporter of nuclear energy, too. "When push comes to shove, I think the American people are going to say, 'I want my house heated and lit up with electricity'. So I think we are finally going to reject some of these arguments against nuclear power, because they are not very convincing."

MITT ROMNEY

"You're seeing the climate get warmer... and I believe that human activity is contributing to that. I don't know what proportion of the change is due to human activity, but my policy is to adopt what I refer to as a 'no regrets policy' -- to take action that allows us to become more energy efficient and ultimately become energy independent as a nation. ... I would like to see us work on a global basis on this effort."

Mitt Romney seems to be conflicted about climate change. Until recently, Romney largely avoided stating his opinion as to whether or not climate change exists or if it is manmade.

Without admitting that climate change is real, as Massachusetts governor Romney introduced a Climate Protection Plan in 2004, which "encourages private citizens and requires state agencies and the state's large businesses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions." His administration also spent more than two years helping to shape an agreement between Northeastern states to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, only to pull out of the pact in 2005, possibly over pressure from the business community.

Romney favors voluntary regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, yet neither "environment" nor "climate change" are mentioned on his campaign website.

Romney advocates energy independence as a strategic imperative: "Because energy independence is crucial to our economy and our national security, we must establish it as a top administration priority, and lead the U.S. to a future with affordable and secure energy."

Romney would increase off-shore and Alaska oil drilling, increase production of biofuels, liquefied coal, and, predictably, nuclear power: "The nation is going to have to explore nuclear power sources again. I'm hopeful that as we invest in this energy sector, that here in Massachusetts we'll find ways to dispose of or to reuse the waste that comes from nuclear power plants."

TOM TANCREDO

"I have no doubt that global warming exists. I just question the cause and what we can do to ameliorate it. But I wonder why the Sierra Club isn't going crazy about the environmental aspects of massive immigration into the U.S. The fact is, Americans consume more energy than anyone else, so if a person moves here from another country, they automatically become bigger polluters."

Congressman Tom Tancredo's (R-CO), a zealous opponent of illegal immigration, also blames immigrants for climate change and environmental carnage. In an interview with Outside and Grist he declares, "An alien crossing the border will drop about eight pounds of trash on a one- to three-day journey. This amounts to hundreds to thousands of pounds of garbage left in an ecosystem completely unprepared for that type of pollution."

Tancredo would "pay attention" to climate changes and study them, but would not impose a "litany" of state, federal and international restrictions.

He supports reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum products, which would reduce carbon emissions and enhance national security, if it's determined that global warming is caused by humans. But he's voted against raising fuel standards.

In a 2007 debate Tancredo admitted his skepticism about climate change: "For every single scientist that tells you it's happening and that it's our fault -- and they'll stack up to here in reports -- I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite."

Where does Tancredo really stand on the issue? Asked by the Associated Press to name "the last work of fiction you've read," Tancredo said, "Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth."

FRED THOMPSON

"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming... Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter's caught the same cold, because it's warming up too, like Pluto. This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle. Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our solar system have in common. Hmmmm. Solar system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn't even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There's a consensus. Ask Galileo."—Paul Harvey Show, 4/13/07

Former Tennessee Senator Fred D. Thompson, after mocking global warming last April, said more recently that "climate change is real" and suggested a measured approach until more was known about it.

Thompson's campaign website doesn't list global warming or the environment among its "Issues," but does make this statement under "Energy Security":

"Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk.... Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don't know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy."

Thompson has a long history of supporting nuclear power, including support of the Tennessee Clinch River Breeder Reactor.

MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

"You can no longer deny the science and bury your head in the sand - climate change is real, and by looking at where and how we are contributing to that problem, we can identify how to reduce our emissions and create a better future for our children and grandchildren."

Although New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn't officially running, he's frequently mentioned as a potential independent candidate. The billionaire media mogul is a pragmatist who could appeal to moderates in both major parties.

In 2006 Bloomberg announced New York City's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030. In 2007 he expanded the proposal: "New York has always been a leader in forward thinking public policies, and by undertaking the most comprehensive, detailed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in US history, and establishing a very clear target for reductions, we will lead by example in fighting global warming."

Environmental Defense's Fred Krupp has praised New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for unveiling a groundbreaking plan to make New York the world's cleanest, healthiest city. The plan includes bold steps to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion, lower energy costs, develop energy efficient buildings, revitalize parks, and fund new mass transit projects.

"The Mayor has shown global leadership by transcending politics to act now on climate change. I hope Washington follows the Mayor's example so we can solve this problem for our children and generations to come."

Bloomberg also defends nuclear power on practical grounds: "There are a lot of people who want to shut down the [local] nuclear plant, but they have never offered any realistic alternatives – even as they at the same time want to fight global warming. You just can't have it both ways!"

DA VID, LIGHT PARTY CANDIDATE

"We support the conscious use of technology in creating A Sustainable Global Solar Hydrogen/Hemp Based Economy... We propose the creation of The Gaia/Solaris Consortium, an Inter-National Corporation, funded in part by Green and Global Flat Taxes. These monies will be used to create a Sustainable Global Solar Hydrogen/Hemp Based Economy."

Da Vid, MD, founder of the Light Party and longtime OPEN EXCHANGE lister, wants to impose a "Green Tax on all environmentally unsustainable industries: oil, gas, herbicides & pesticides, nuclear, logging/timber." He would use surplus revenues to "mitigate the effects of global warming" and "create millions of new jobs."

Da Vid's most important message is to raise people's consciousness. He sincerely believes that "unlimited clean electrical energy" is possible from renewable sources and that scarcity is a myth based in fear and ignorance. Da Vid is certainly the most optimistic of all presidential contenders, although his energy plan could be more detailed. Da Vid says he is close to Dennis Kucinich on major issues, leaving open the intriguing possibility of a Da Vid-Kucinich ticket.

PAUL KANGAS, GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE

"Global warming is caused by too many people driving cars.... Because of this illegal war [in Iraq], we are wasting time, when the world should be cooperating to stop global warming.... We must not rebuild New Orleans areas below sea level. They must move to higher ground."

Paul Kangas, private investigator, San Francisco "favorite son," and longtime OPEN EXCHANGE lister, is one of several candidates running for the Green Party nomination. Global Greens are calling for nations to adopt binding mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Greens emphasize environmentalism, participatory democracy, and a federal commitment to end poverty. Kangas urges holistic health and universal healthcare reforms.

"By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it."

The Libertarian Party position is that by virtue of its size and intrusion into people's lives, government itself is the largest polluter. Moreover, government and government employees are generally immune from prosecution. Protecting private property rights is the surest way to eliminate pollution and save the environment, say libertarians. They would privatize public lands, trusting private owners to maintain their property. If pollution escapes the confines of an owner's land, injured parties could reclaim damages through legal action. How this would apply to watersheds, wetlands, ocean fisheries, or air pollution from China is not so obvious. Earth, Incorporated?

"The U.S. must immediately return to participation in international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, limit carbon emissions, and accept a major role in worldwide efforts to control global warming."

The Socialist Platform calls for public ownership and democratic control of all natural resources in order to conserve resources, preserve wilderness areas, and restore environmental quality. Socialists support recycling and large-scale restoration efforts. They would put full financial responsibility on private companies for prevention and clean-up of their own toxic wastes, with full compensation to workers and residents adversely affected by environmental hazards. They also oppose any new nuclear power projects, would phase out existing plants, and ban the export of nuclear technology.

Does the Socialist Party USA coordinate policy with socialists worldwide? Communist China has just surpassed the U.S. as world's largest carbon emitter and is rapidly building new nuclear power plants.

We are indebted to the following news gathering agencies for much of our source material. Special kudos to all the reporters who did most of the heavy lifting:

Grist, http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/06/candidates/

New York Times, http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/climate/index.html

Counsel on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/14765/

African American Environmentalist Association, http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/01/presidential-candidates-global-warming.html