Here is another example of talk vs. action.  By now, we all know that Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, showing a glaring lack of judgment and giving in to the lobbyists' demands.  However, he does talk a lot about and has a plan to move us towards a greener nation, just like Hillary.  But who actually acts?

From:  http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/NATION/576162886/1001

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have called for strict mandatory limits to control greenhouse gases but they aren't leading by example — each has failed to pay for offsets to cover all of his campaign's carbon emissions.

Campaign finance records for 2007 show that neither of the two leading presidential candidates has spent money to independently cover his campaign's "carbon footprint" — the amount of carbon emissions emitted by the planes and vehicles the candidates and their staffs use for travel, or by the computers and headquarters needed to run a presidential campaign.

Though both campaigns say they practice energy conservation, Mr. Obama offsets only some of his airplane flight emissions, while Mr. McCain doesn't cover even that.

"They clearly should be not only buying these ration coupons, or indulgences, but they should be massively reducing their footprint," said Christopher Horner, author of the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." "The fact that they're out front on [global warming] is where their troubles start."

By contrast, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has made monthly payments to offset her campaign's "carbon footprint."

The concept is simple: Businesses and individuals can pay a company to plant trees or fund projects that produce lower amounts of greenhouse gases. The goal is "carbon neutrality," or paying for enough offsets to cover your own emissions, and it's catching on from rock bands to Congress. Even parts of the Academy Awards went carbon-neutral last year.

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have called for cap-and-trade schemes that would set a limit for carbon emissions and allow companies to trade credits among themselves. Mrs. Clinton takes advantage of a similar offsets market.

Mrs. Clinton spent $20,327 last year with Native Energy, making regular payments including one of $4,743 in December. At $12 per metric ton, that December figure would give her a monthly carbon output of less than 400 metric tons, or about 20 times the average U.S. home's total for a year.