Not So Easy Being Green, huh McCain?

The League of Conservation Voters issued a report today detailing just how friendly our three most likely future presidents have been to the environment, Reuters reported. Clinton and Obama spanked McCain, who actually managed to score a zero out of 100 for his green votes last year. He missed all 15 environmental decisions tallied in the report, including a lost-by-one-vote bill to cut big oil tax breaks. Clinton and Obama, at 73 and 67 percent respectively, each missed four of the 15 key votes last year. The democrats’ career scores were essentially even, with Clinton at 87 and Obama at 86 percent. McCain, on the other hand, came in at a low 24 percent despite the "record of common sense stewardship" noted on his website. The League emphasized that environmental issues are increasingly effecting voters’ decisions. Can’t decide? Check out Outside’s eco-report card.

--Claire Napier Galofaro

Comments

[rig]

Cuba has won awards for green. Is that what you want?

[Bonneville Mariner]

bob said "he only advocates half measures that would not put much of a dent in our carbon admissions"

Again, according to whom? These groups for the most part share a common philosophy unfriendly to free market solutions. Of course they're not going to speak favorably of the solutions he presents. I look at the growing environmental activism industry and have a hard time seeing how any of its proposed solutions will put a dent in environmental problems.

[bob]

Numerous groups in addition to LCV have rated McCain poorly on environmental issues, especially including climate change. While McCain at least does not deny that climate change exists, he only advocates half measures that would not put much of a dent in our carbon admissions. Grist is a good source of information on this topic.

[Bonneville Mariner]

The LCV (with it's uber-liberal founder and Lefty current president) may be "technically" non-partisan, but a look at it's work shows a clear bias against Republicans.

Republicans are frequently stereotyped as anti-environment, and LCV's reporting seems to validate the stereotype. But if the stereotype is based in any truth, we must realistically believe that most Republicans A) hate the environment, or B)are too stupid to understand environmental issues?

Or could we "open-minded" enviro-philes consider that perhaps Republicans tend to view both the problems and the solutions differently than Democrats and the activist groups that are rating the candidates?

Could it be that McCain's nice-sounding free market approach simply doesn't jibe with what LCV thinks should be the solution? Whose definition of "green" is the correct one? Who decides who loves the environment more?

The LCV's report on McCain is as meaningless as would be Christian Coalition report on the religiosity of the candidates.