This is cross-blogged from www.greenpieceblog.com. I have the links to the information there.
-----------

Last night in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Senator McCain vowed to put America ahead of party. 
This statement struck me as odd considering that since becoming the GOP's presumptive nominee, McCain has abandoned his past moderate environmental views and adopted the much less environmentally friendly platform of his party.
On Fuel Efficiency --- 
- Old McCain: In 2002 he sponsored a bill in the Senate with John Kerry raising fuel efficiency standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2016. - New McCain: In 2007 he failed to even vote on a law, which passed the Senate 86-8, that raised fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. 
On Global Warming ---
- Old McCain: In 2003, McCain and Joe Lieberman sponsored the Senate's first law that restricted carbon emissions. - New McCain: In 2007 the Senate failed by one vote to pass a tax credit that would help expand clean energy sources, McCain was the only Senator who didn't vote on the law.- Old McCain: In 2003 & 2004, McCain held hearings on climate change as Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. - New McCain: In 2008, McCain flip-flopped on the bi-partisan Warner-Lieberman Climate Change Act, an aggressive piece of legislation written by Senior Republican Virginia Senator John Warner and Senior Independent Connecticut Senator Lieberman that was praised as a great step in fighting global warming.  During his campaign's "Green Tour" McCain said he would support the bill but later said he wouldn't support it. In the end, he just didn't vote at all. 
On the Oil Industry ---
- Old McCain: In 2005, McCain voted against the 2005 Energy Bill which was written by Dick Cheney and old industry lobbyists behind closed doors. It gave billions in tax incentives to oil companies during their most profitable years. - New McCain: In 2008, McCain's presidential platform includes $3.8 billion in tax breaks for the top 5 largest American oil companies. Shockingly, McCain's current "Renewable Energy" platform says he support tax subsidies until..."the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars. "  In February,  Exxon-Mobile alone set the record for the highest annual and quarterly profits in American history, do profits like that "merit taxpayers' dollars?" 
On the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ---
- Old McCain: In January of this year, McCain said drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was akin to drilling for oil in the Grand Canyon and the Everglades. - New McCain: In June, he said he was willing to go back and reconsider drilling in ANWR. See the video HERE. In August he reiterated his plan to reconsider his opposition to drilling in ANWR.  \Just two weeks ago, McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, she fully supports drilling for oil in ANWR immediately. 
On Offshore Oil Drilling ---
- Old McCain: In 1999, as a presidential candidate, McCain scolded the Clinton administration for extending 36 offshore oil leaves along the California coast. He also scolded the special interests in Washington that sought offshore drilling leases. - New McCain: In June of this year, McCain called for the moratorium on offshore oil drilling to be lifted so oil companies could drill for oil in America's oceans. Immediately, McCain's oil industry executive campaign contributions raised from just over $200,000 in May to over $1.1 million in June.  
On the League of Conservation Votes ---
- Old McCain: In 2004, McCain was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters in his Senate Campaign. - New McCain: In 2007, McCain received a 0% rating by the League of Conservation Voters because of his failure to vote on a single piece of environmental legislation. Now the League has endorsed his opponent, Barack Obama in the presidential election. 
On Keeping Your Tires Inflated --- 
- Current McCain: On August 4th, the McCain campaign handed out tire gauges to mock Obama's call to Americans to conserve gasoline by doing things like keeping tires inflated. McCain laughed at Obama's idea even though McCain supporters California Gov. Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Crist have recommended, along with Nascar, tire inflation for conservation. - Current McCain: Two days later, McCain said at a town hall meeting, "Obama said a couple of days ago says we should all inflate our tires. I don't disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it." 
The sad truth is that McCain has been debating McCain on environmental issues this entire campaign. He could participate in a lively and lengthy debate with himself on environmental policy for hours. It seems that when McCain is interested in exciting his base, he doesn't put "Country First."

I need Obama to be more consistent on his environmental and energy policies. I don't have much doubt that he'll be elected President in November and I just don't want to be disappointed because I believed in his message of "change" only to get more of the same pro-industry, wink and nod energy plans that fool the public with fancy language but zero impact. This is really something that worries me.
As the nomination comes to a close, I'm spending more and more time on Obama's website trying to get to know him a little bit more. I was watching his videos on the environment, enjoying what I was hearing, until I came to the 3 minute and 50 second mark on this video:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1137739439/bclid900692839/bctid1334447388

It is at that point Obama starts to talk about Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill. Obama correctly criticizes Cheney for only meeting with environmental groups once during the bill's negotiations and with the oil and gas companies 40 times. He then says "Theres no wonder this system is skewed in the wrong direction."
My jaw dropped. The problem I have with this video is that Obama supported Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill. 
I've argued many times with very smart people here on TPM about the reasons why Obama voted for the Bill. But I can't reconcile him 1) voting for the 2005 Energy Bill, 2) bragging about his vote in a press release and 3) releasing a video on his campaign site attacking Cheney for the Bill. 
Obama knew at the time that Cheney was meeting privately with oil lobbyists to craft an energy policy behind closed doors that misplaced our national priorities. Yet, he voted for that awful piece of legislation anyways. It went against all the principles he says his candidacy stands for. Both McCain and Hillary voted against the bill.
I am an environmentalist and I want to see a clearer picture of Obama's policies on these issues.

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has fought hard for many years to convince the media and voters that he is a maverick. This is no easy task. Within the Republican party, nothing is more highly valued than cohesiveness and loyalty to GOP principles. If McCain wanted to continue receiving support from his party while appearing independent to the voters, he had to pull out a few tricks. 
Apparently one of McCain's favorite tricks is simply failing to vote in Congress on issues he claims to support on the campaign trail. This allows him to talk from both sides of his mouth. He can tell voters he supports particular policies, while doing nothing in the Senate to help progress these policies.
One policy area that suffers the most from McCain's maverick game is the environment.
Earlier this year, the League of Conservation Voters released their annual scorecard of elected officials' records on environmental legislation. On the 2007 scorecard, the League graded McCain a 0%. The last year he scored in the single digits was in 1999-2000, the other time he ran for President. Why did the League give McCain such a dismally low score in 2007? Because he simply failed to vote, at all, on any of the 15 pieces of important legislation the League used to gauge environmental leadership. If you think the League's scoring was partisan, simply look to Republican Senator Susan Collins'100% rating or Democratic Representative Dan Boren's 15% rating.
The League of Conservation Voters was not the only organization that noted McCain's failure to take a position in the Senate on environmental priorities.  Republicans for Environmental Protection noted that McCain missed all 14 of the votes on which they scored Senators for environmental leadership. They refused to give McCain a 0% for his performance, however, because they felt it was unfair to judge busy presidential candidates on the same scale as their Senate colleagues. Of course Hillary Clinton was able to attend many of these votes and received a 73% from the League of Conservation Voters, while Barack Obama received a 67%.
Lets drill down a little further to see more examples of McCain's lack of action in the Senate on environmental legislation. On February 6th, the Senate was preparing to vote on an expanded economic stimulus package that included tax credits for clean energy development. Hours before the vote, McCain landed at Dulles Airport in Washington, DC with plenty of time to participate in the vote. When asked whether he would get to the Senate and participate in the vote, he told reporters he didn't know if he could make it and that he had other meetings to attend. That stimulus package failed to meet the 60 votes necessary to pass cloture in the Senate...by one vote. The next day, a similar version of the economic stimulus package came to a vote in the Senate, without clean energy incentives. McCain voted for the revised package and it passes.
To add insult to injury, the Sierra Club encouraged its members to contact McCain's office and complain about his failure to support clean energy incentives in the original economic stimulus package. His staff routinely lied about his vote and told callers that he has, in fact, supported the version of the package with clean energy incentives. When pressed by the Sierra Club and the media about their claims, McCain's staff simply said he would support clean energy incentives in the future.
Another example of McCain's favorite campaign trick can be found in his flip-flop on the Climate Security Act, which is coming up for a vote in a few days. Back on May 9th, McCain was traveling around the country telling voters that he would be progressive on environmental issues, specifically global warming. With Joe Lieberman at his side, he promised he'd support the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill (the Climate Security Act) saying, 'I hope it will pass and I hope the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the President of the United States would sign it." Yet, on May 28th he completely changed his tune and claimed that because the bill doesn't include enough funding for nuclear energy development, he would not come to the floor of the Senate and vote on it.
Now, I hope you are ready to dive into the minutiae a little further because McCain's complicated views on this Climate Security Act get even stranger with some additional research. On may 21st, a week before McCain said he wouldn't vote on the bill because of its lack of nuclear energy subsidies, Congress Daily reported that Lieberman and Warner were offering up an amendment to their bill that would greatly expand investment in nuclear energy development. The amendment will allow Senators to go on record supporting both nuclear subsidies and the Climate Security Act, a compromise one might think McCain could support, given his comments. But McCain still will not participate in any of the votes relating to the Climate Security Act when the issue comes to the floor on June 2nd. 
With all the passion McCain displayed when making his public commitments to the environment on the campaign trail, you would think he could find time to vote on environmental legislation in the Senate. Apparently being a maverick is too burdensome to keep your promises. Or maybe McCain is being a little disingenuous with the voters

The 2005 Energy Bill was written behind closed doors by Dick Cheney and his oil and coal industry buddies. It did very little, if anything, to generate a net gain for the environment or for renewable energy technology. It did expand funding for coal and ethanol, both of which contribute to global warming and destruction of the environment.

Of the three existing mainstream candidates for President, only Obama supported the 2005 Energy Bill. Many claim that it would have been career suicide for him to oppose the bill because of his representation in the Senate of Illinois, a state with a lot of corn (ethanol) and a lot of coal.

Now that he is running for President, it is possible for Obama to distance himself from his support of corn based fuels and coal. Instead, he is pushing "clean coal" as an environmentally safe alternative energy source. Don't be fooled, clean coal is a misleading marketing ploy and Obama knows it.

Obama's main argument for his candidacy is that he is going to change Washington and to bring a new breed of politics to the White House.  He says he will tell people what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear. Yet, in West Virginia he is airing an ad that advances "clean coal" because it is a state where coal is economically important, and thereby politically popular. How disappointing.

What is clean coal? Essentially, clean coal is altered coal that burns in such a way that it is possible to capture the CO2 released and to hold that CO2 in a special chamber. First, this technology is often marketed as a currently viable solution to global warming. Carbon capturing does not exist now and will not exist for at least two decades. Second,even if the technology existed, we would be capturing CO2 in chambers that would need to be stored indefinitely, just like nuclear waste. We would be passing our energy mistakes onto our grandchildren. Third, extracting coal from the earth requires blowing the tops off of mountains and destroying entire ecosystems in the process.

I believed that Obama was being supportive of Illinois when he voted for the 2005 Energy Bill. Now that he is including "clean coal" as an important part of his presidential platform, I realize that his loyalties to the coal industry run deeper than originally presented. We have spent the last 8 years watching our environment be destroyed by an administration owned by the coal and oil industries. Isn't it heartbreaking to see we can expect the same from Obama?

Here is Obama's campaign advertisement promoting "clean coal" in West Virginia...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOvZ0RUGKno

If the shoe was on the other foot, wouldn't all the Obamanaics be crying foul here? I can see the headlines now...

"Hillary is trying to buy the election."

"Hillary spends millions to distract from her record"

"Obama succeeds despite heavy spending by Hillary"

I'm proud of the fact that although Obama has spent an absolute ton of money on ads in states like Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Hillary has managed to succeed in those states.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the world's nations are as split on the Democratic race as the United States is. According to the story, Barack Obama scores high amongst Europeans, specifically Germans. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is popular in China and Mexico.

Barack Obama's background as the son of a non-practicing Muslim Kenyan & a Kansan, who also lived briefly in Indonesia as a child, has attracted a great deal of attention throughout Africa and the Middle East. In Kenya, for instance, people supposedly order Senator brand beer by asking for an "Obama."

Hillary Clinton is viewed by nations with specific national security challenges, like Columbia and Israel, as being more capable on these issues. Former President Clinton's pro-trade position attracts the support of China and Mexico.

Support for Barack Obama among Europeans is part of a romantic fascination with his roots, according to the article. Despite their affection for Obama, there is skepticism that Americans will really vote for him.

www.greenpieceblog.com

I've never embedded a YouTube video into a TPM post, so if this doesn't work, you can watch the video here.

Ann Lewis, a Hillary Clinton surrogate, had an opportunity on Capital
Sunday to "Turn the Tables" on Mike Allen of Politico and ask him why
the press doesn't hold Clinton and Obama to the same standards.
Awkwardness ensued.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u4c47X5ASw8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u4c47X5ASw8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

There is a group of Obama supporters who take their passion for his candidacy to such an absurd level that it makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Now, I'm not referring to the supporters who are in awe of Obama. Its a cliche by now that some folks hold Obama in such a high esteem that they view him as the second coming. I can appreciate the excitement and hopeful enthusiasm of those supporter.

The types of people who make me cringe are the ones who refuse to acknowledge any of Obama's mistakes or shortcomings. These supporters jump on any news story or blog entry that attempts to be objective by addressing Obama's strengths and weaknesses. The authors are accused of showing a partiality or being an unabashed Hillary supporter.

In Farhad Manjoo's book True Enough he describes the type of enthusiasm these Obama supporters display this way... "They care little for honest opinion. They want to pick up the paper and
see in it a reflection of their own nearly religious zeal for the thing
they love. They don't want a review. They want a hagiography."

The problem with having such an absolute devotion to all things Obama is that it strikes people who respect Obama, in spite of his liabilities, as creepy and irrational. He stands a great chance of winning the election in November and he will do so in spite of the fact that he is imperfect. Going after anybody who acknowledges those imperfections will not guarantee Obama victory, it will just undermine the credibility of his supporters.

www.greenpieceblog.com

Apparently things have become so bleak for him in the U.S. that John McCain has decided to go overseas and start picking the pockets of anyone who doesn't know him quite as well as we do.

On March 20th, McCain has invited fundraisers to the Spencer House at St. Jame's Place in London.

The funny thing about this fundraiser is that McCain and his staffers have promised on several occasions that his trip to England will be void of any campaign activities. He is supposedly visiting as a member of the Armed Services Committee, not as a candidate.

Seems odd that people would pay $1,000 to $2,500 a ticket to see McCain discuss the Armed Services Committee and not his plans for the Presidency. Its also odd that McCain will not join his colleagues on the plane ride home from England, but will leave a little later so he can attend to other business.

McCain vs. Obama on the Environment
McCain's Enviromentalist VP Choices

Right now the Democratic party is pretending to discuss possible running mates for the winner of their party's primary election. The reality is that its too soon for Democrats to make a decision about the perfect pairing for November success.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are busy digging into the records and criminal histories of several possible running mates for John McCain. Romney threw his hat into the ring by disclosing to Hannity & Colmes that, "Any Republican leader in this country would be
honored to be asked to serve as the vice presidential nominee,
myself included."

The good news for Democrats is that Republicans will likely announce their 2008 ticket before the Democrat primary has played itself out, allowing the winner time to consider what ticket would be strongest against McCain and his VP.

The question right now is, which Republican running mate would be the most difficult for Democrats to defeat in November? Ignoring the obvious problem of not knowing who will be nominated on the Dem side, what types of strengths is John McCain looking for in a VP?

The first qualification for McCain's running mate will obviously be youth. McCain's biggest liability is that he would be the oldest man elected to the Presidency. Hypothetically speaking, a young VP would attract younger voters. If Obama is on the Dem ticket, his appeal to youth would make it especially difficult for McCain to attract young people.

The second necessary qualification would be conservative credentials. McCain has the false reputation of being a "maverick." The truth is, he is more of a flip-flopper. He has disagreed with Republicans on several occasions and even discussed leaving the party, but he has also voted party-line to assuage the conservative base. It seems like he votes against Republican priorities by opposing things like Bush's tax cuts or interrogation torture, only to later support the same tax cuts and to allow torture. To create the impression that McCain is a consistent conservative, he will be looking for someone with glowing credentials on taxes, spending and security. Of course, McCain also wants to retain his supposed support among independents and will be looking for someone with a strong environmental record who isn't necessarily a Bible-thumper.

The third qualification McCain will be seeking is executive experience. Its no coincidence that very few members of the Senate have gone on to serve as President. Americans have a general distrust for anyone who spends most of their time voting rather than managing. If the Democratic "dream ticket" becomes a reality, McCain would try to highlight Clinton and Obama's lack of executive experience by choosing a Governor as a running mate.

So who does this leave as potential running mates? You could say Romney. However, Romney and McCain did not get along well during the GOP primary. Romney also carries the baggage of being a terrible flip-flopper. His newly discovered hatred of gays and abortions will only feed the perception that McCain is a part-time conservative. Plus, it would take a lot more than Romney to turn Massachusetts into a red state in November.

Another option is Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota. Pawlenty is a small government, low taxes kind of conservative from a moderate state. He could help deliver the upper mid-west. Pawlenty helped fix Minnesota's deficit when he was elected Governor in 2002, which would add economic know-how to McCain. He has run on a platform of environmental conservation and has a decent record on the issue. He is young too.

The final option I know of is Charlie Crist, Governor of Florida. Crist has only been Governor for a short time but he has very high approval ratings in the state among both Democrats and Republicans. He has been a crusader for lower property taxes and home insurance costs. He put his reputation on the line against the teachers', police officers' and fire fighters' unions with a ballot initiative on property tax reform that passed by huge margins. He is also an enviro who organized a global warming conference in Florida with special guest Arnold Schwarzenegger. Crist signed a moratorium on new coal plants in Florida and has pushed for renewable energy tax credits. He supports civil unions for gay couples too.

Obviously McCain can only do so much to make-up for his shortfalls. Even with the right running mate he cannot avoid questions of his foreign and economic policy. Plus, many conservatives say they just can't vote for him. But as Democrats, we need to be prepared for his attempt to shift people's perceptions and the media's scrutiny by choosing a good VP.

Do you think there is a female or racial minority member of the GOP who McCain might choose? Do you know of any other VP candidates that are currently being considered? What Democrats would be good running mates if there isn't a "Dream Ticket?" I want to know your thoughts.

I explore Pawlenty and Crist's environmental record a little further HERE. You can see a video of Bush & McCain's love for eachother HERE

Finally, you can sign the petition urging the leading Dem and GOP candidates to make their campaigns carbon neutral HERE.

WWW.GREENPIECEBLOG.COM

John McCain is more of an environmentalist than most Republicans. He is in the Schwarzenegger camp when it comes to curbing global warming and ending reliance on foreign oil. Lately, McCain has shied away from his environmentalist roots in order to appeal to a more business friendly conservative base. Hopefully that is a trend he will avoid in the very near future.

One sign that McCain is still an environmentalist at heart is his considerations for a running mate. So far, two names have been circulated that give hope to those in the environmental community who fear a Republican win in November.

The first name often circulated as a potential running mate is Florida Governor Charlie Crist. I am a Floridian who has been transplanted to Washington, DC. The environment in Florida is a very important issue because the economy there relies on tourists flocking to clean, beautiful beaches. Also, Florida is home to the Everglades National Park, a very sensitive ecosystem that has been abused for years. Not to mention that as the "Sunshine State" Florida has a great position as a leader on solar power. So what are Crist's environmental accomplishments to date?

• Crist opposed and halted the planned development of 3 new coal power plants in Florida, including 1 located in the Everglades.
  
• Crist has signed a moratorium on coal power plant development.
• Under Crist's leadership Florida is planning on building the world's largest solar-thermal power plant.
• Crist supported & signed a law expanding restoration of the Everglades ecosystem to include Lake Okeechobee and areas farther North.
  
• Crist has increased regulations on farmers growing crops along the Everglades with tougher wastewater residual standards, faster development of total maximum daily load standards for the Caloosahatchee, and a multi-agency plan for cleaner agriculture practices.
• The 2007-08 budget he signed includes $200 million for Everglades restoration.
• Crist coordinated and hosted a Climate Summit in Florida to begin a dialog among environmental and business leaders on how to address the challenge of global climate change.
  
• Crist has agreed to cut Florida's greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in just 7 years and by 80% by 2050.
  
• Crist has pledged to make the state's buildings and operations more environmentally friendly.
  
• Read an interview with Gov. Crist on his environmental record HERE

Another name mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain is Minnesota Governor Jim Pawlenty. Pawlenty is the Chairman of the National Governors Association and a conservative Republican in a state that leans Democratic. So what are Pawlenty's green credentials?

• Pawlenty is a proponent of clean, renewable energy. In his role as head of the National Governors Association, he has presented state standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• He proposed and approved creation of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program that conserves 120,000 acres of land surrounding environmentally sensitive water bodies.
• Pawlenty helped to create the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge.
• Pawlenty created four million acres of "certified sustainable forests," the nationals largest area of such forest land.
• Pawlenty directed lottery funds to the Natural Resources Trust Fund.
• Pawlenty created a wetland monitoring program for prairie wetlands.
• Pawlenty approved laws that reduced mercury emissions from Minnesota's power plants.
  
• Pawlenty supported the "Community Based Energy Development Tariff" that helps fund development of local wind and clean energy sources along with a goal of 800 megawatts of locally created renewable electricity by 2010.
• Pawlenty has proposed a constitutional amendment dedicating some state sales tax for improved water monitoring, cleaning and remediation.
• Pawlenty signed a law that makes it more difficult for ATV riders to drive through forests. Forests must be independently evaluated to ensure they are able to handle the impact of ATVs before riders can enter the forests legally.

If you want to learn more about John McCain's environmental platform and policies you can click HERE and HERE. And make sure to sign the petition urging McCain to run a carbon neutral presidential campaign.

As the Democratic election chugs along, it provides observers the opportunity to learn as much as possible about each candidate. In fact, by the time this thing is over, we'll know more than we want about Obama & Clinton (i.e. that Obama looks good in his underwear).

The most important thing to glean from all of this information is what type of President these candidates would be if they were elected. My concern is what environmental policies the future President would support.

Barack Obama & Hillary are not far apart on almost all of their plans. Both support cap & trade emissions programs, 80% renewable energy by 2050, investing in renewable energy development, etc. There are some differences, however, in the way they have voted in the past and the loyalties they have formed.

You probably know by now that Barack Obama supported the 2005 Energy Bill written by Dick Cheney and his big oil lobbyist friends. Hillary & McCain didn't. What you probably do not know is that Obama has also co-sponsored a bill that creates federal loan guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies for expansion of coal power plants.

The bill was originally created to encourage development of "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel," which is supposed to be a cleaner way of getting energy from coal. The Argonne National Laboratory, which is run by the Department of Energy, says that turning coal into liquid fuel yields 125% more carbon dioxide than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than gasoline. In other words, this method of burning coal is still pathetically bad for our environment. The only incentive in this bill to move to "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel" was more tax breaks and no mandates, leaving the coal companies to pollute unrestricted.

Why would Obama co-sponsor a bill that gives money to increased coal plant development without demanding lower greenhouse gas emissions? Some of it has to do with the fact that Illinois is a large coal producing state. He has also supported the use of ethanol, a "wannabe" green energy source, because of Illinois' powerful agricultural lobby.

After the environmental community and MoveOn.org attacked Obama for co-sponsoring the pro-coal bill, he backed off with this statement..."Senator Obama supports ... investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."

Barack Obama is also a big supporter of nuclear energy. He believes that nuclear energy should be a part of America's "energy portfolio" because it does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear energy creates waste that must be stored in a safe place for many many generations. Obama has received thousands in campaign contributions from the Illinois nuclear power company Exelon. In addition, David Axelrod, Obama's Campaign Manager, has served as a consultant to Exelon in the past.

My hope is that President Obama would be the change agent he promises to be on the issue of renewable energy. Relying on dirty 18th century energy technology just because it can be made slightly cleaner is not the right direction for America. Furthermore, relying on a source of energy that creates extremely dangerous and everlasting waste should not be an option. Our next President must treat renewable energy sources like legitimate options, not side projects or novelties.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who is paying for carbon offsets. Sign the petition to tell McCain and Obama to do the same.

WWW.GREENPIECEBLOG.COM

I know this post is going to attract vitriol from Obama supporters. I just want to assure them that within a liberal blog like this one, it is fair and necessary for like-minded people to criticize the policies and votes of our candidates so they bring our concerns with them to elected office. The biggest complaint among liberals is that the Clintons triangulated away our core beliefs in exchange for higher approval ratings and small legislative gains. I don't want to see this happen again, hence this post.

In 2005, Dick Cheney met in secret with several oil, coal, and agricultural lobbyists to craft an Energy Bill that essentially handed them our environment. The list of those involved in the 2005 Energy Bill negotiations is still largely confidential. Dick Cheney has used his executive privilege to keep it that way.

It was highly publicized at the time that this bill was one of the worst corporate giveaways in history. As a matter of fact, this bill lifted environmental protections that were in place to slow global climate change and actually resulted in greater release of carbon emissions. How? The 160-acre cap that restricted expansion of coal power plants was lifted so that more coal power plants could be constructed. The bill also opened up federal lands for inventory checks of possible coal supplies.

Over $2.5 billion in tax exemptions were provided in the bill for fossil fuel producers, including the coal industry. This is in addition to the $1.6 billion given for development of "clean coal" facilities, an Orwellian use of words that attempts to equate the filthy, environmentally degrading source of electricity with 21st Century green technology.

Some might argue that the bill also provided support for creation of renewable energy sources. As a matter of fact, the new funding for "alternative energy" expansion (which included natural gas and ethanol) was almost half that which was provided for development of fossil fuel and coal power. Any gains provided by the bill for renewable energy was dominated by the losses from expansion of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, Obama voted for this bill. McCain didn't. Incidentally, Hillary didn't either, but as I feel Obama will be the nominee, its important to emphasize his vote. Why is it important to point out Obama's vote when he has strong support from the League of Conservation Voters and other environmental organizations, and McCain doesn't? Because long after the election is over, I want to be assured Obama won't compromise away our environment again.

In the past, commenters on TPM have explained that it would have been political suicide for Obama to vote against the 2005 Energy Bill because of its support for ethanol expansion and coal. Illinois has an economy largely reliant on these two energy sources. However, my impression is that Obama places principle above politics. His strongest argument is that he will tell Americans the truth, even when it is inconvenient. How then does he explain this vote?

The purpose of this post is to ensure that we have a President who will not pay lip service to the environment. We cannot use 20th century tactics to confront 21st century challenges. Obama has to be the President he says he will be. He cannot betray his supporters by enacting legislation that stands in complete contradiction to the campaign promises he made. That is old politics.

The damage has been done from Obama's 2005 Energy Bill support. If you have any doubt that there are direct, permanent ramifications from his vote, read THIS ARTICLE about coal companies blowing the tops off of mountains to obtain coal as cheaply as possible, ignoring the horrendous effects on the health of the surrounding people, animals and environment.

I understand the impulse to get behind our candidate and loyally turn a blind eye to votes like this to ensure his victory. We can all support our candidate while emphasizing a platform that stays true to fundamental Democratic ideals. Perfect is often the enemy of good, but this bill was pitiful. Obama should have never voted for it and its up to us to make sure he never supports something like this again.

Please take a moment and urge McCain & Obama to sign a carbon neutrality pledge to make their campaigns environmentally friendly.

www.greenpieceblog.com

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but neither Senator John McCain nor Senator Barack Obama have made their campaigns carbon neutral. What does this mean? This means that neither candidate is investing any of the millions of dollars their campaigns have raised to offset the pollution from their many plane and bus rides.

By purchasing carbon offsets, Obama and McCain would mitigate their campaign's greenhouse gas emissions by funding renewable energy research. This could result in more American jobs, improved national security, and a healthier planet.

Both Senators have proposed "Cap & Trade" emissions programs in the past that operate in a very similar way to carbon credit markets. Why would they propose a program that they won't participate in themselves? Its time for these candidates to stop just talking the talk and to start walking the walk on real environmental policy reform.

Please sign the petition to urge Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to make their campaigns carbon neutral. Environmental leadership isn't just a campaign slogan, its a principle that must be followed now.

For years, McCain was a leader among his Republican peers on the issue of the environment. But just as he has on other policy issues, McCain is taking a page from Bush's environmental playbook. For 2007, the League of Conservation Voters ranked McCain below all of his fellow Congress Members on votes related to the environment. He actually missed more votes than some Members who died in the middle of the year. In fact, on every vote the L.C.V. labeled as "critical" he was absent. I broke down McCain's earlier environmental record vs. Obama's HERE.

McCain isn't the only one who has struggled to meet his environmental commitments during the Presidential campaign. Both Clinton and Obama saw their ratings drop over the course of 2007. Obama's previous rating of 86 dropped to 63 and Clinton's dropped from 87 to 73. You can see a comparison of Clinton & Obama's environmental record HERE.

I am impressed that Hillary managed to maintain a pretty high level compared to the others. One of my concerns is that on a few important environmental votes in the past, Obama has leaned toward expanding coal, nuclear and ethanol energy. I know the state he represents has an economy built on coal and corn, but as an agent of change, I hope he can lead the way on renewable energy technology rather than deferring to dirty, out-dated sources just because it suits immediate economic interests. On the environment, whoever wins, will have to be brave and far-sighted.

While I'm on this topic, please take a moment to email Obama and McCain and urge them to buy carbon offsets to mitigate the environmental damage caused by their air planes, buses, trains and campaigns.

Email Obama HERE

Email McCain HERE

www.greenpieceblog.com