Obama vs. McCain on the Environment at the Opening Bell

View Story On One Page

Print This Story

Share This Story

By Steve Cohen

June 6, 2008 | 10:14 a.m.

Obama vs. McCain on the Environment at the Opening Bell

+Enlarge

More on Green >>

Now that the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominating process has ended, it is time to compare the records and positions of the two remaining major party candidates. For a Republican, Senator John McCain has shown some signs that he understands the issues of sustainability. He and Senator Joseph Lieberman have sponsored climate change bills that have almost been enacted. He is making noises like he might select the environment as the issue to show people that he is not George W. Bush. However, the League of Conservation Voters, a group that monitors Congress’ environmental records gave him a score of 0 percent in 2007 and 24 percent life time. In contrast, Senator Barak Obama Sen. Obama scored 67% in 2007 and 86% lifetime. Most of Obama’s decline last year was due to missed votes related to his campaign schedule. The average score for Members of Congress in 2007 was 53%.

A very thoughtful piece on McCain’s environmental record was published by Bradford Plumer in the New Republic in mid-March. Plumer observed that:

Trying to explain McCain's wildly erratic record on environmental issues is a maddening task.” He quotes Debbie Sease, the legislative director of the Sierra Club who noted that: "We never know where he's going to come from. As a general rule, on land and conservation issues ... he tends to be pretty good. But he's a doctrinaire conservative on the role of government in protecting people from pollution." Plumer gives McCain credit for trying to protect the vistas in Arizona’s Grand Canyon, “But, when he wasn't safeguarding Arizona scenery, McCain usually held the conservative line, voting to hollow out clean-water and health protections or to expand offshore drilling.

Of course, Senators survive politically by representing their states and Presidents must govern the entire country. It is possible that when faced with making policy for the entire nation, McCain could transcend his roots. From 1964-1966, President Lyndon Johnson left behind the racism of his Texas orgins. Under President Johnson the U.S. passed important legislation in Civil Rights and Voting Rights and famously made a war on poverty that ended up reducing the nation’s poverty rate from over 20% to nearly 10%. Of course he also made war on a country in South East Asia , damaging that nation and this one and impairing his otherwise impressive legacy. But I digress—the point is-- it is hard to predict how a McCain Presidency would be for the planet. It couldn’t possibly be any worse than the current President’s record, but that is setting the bar very low. It is possible that he could do what California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg have done—strengthen their centrist and visionary credentials by going green.

So what about the recently anointed presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Senator Obama? Obama is a cosponsor of the strongest climate bill in the Senate, the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act which would reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. He seems to understand the importance of sustainable energy to economic growth and if he were elected would likely be indebted in some way to the environmental community.

In a July, 2007 interview with Grist.org Senator Obama was asked how central energy and environment would be to his campaign for President and he responded by stating that:

…energy [has] to be one of the three most important issues that we're facing domestically, along with revamping our education system and fundamentally reforming our health-care system. And the opportunities for significant change exist partly because awareness of the threat of climate change has grown rapidly over the last several years…People recognize the magnitude of the [climate] problem and are ready to take it on. Not only is there environmental concern, but you're also seeing people who are recognizing that our dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East is distorting our foreign policies, and that we can't sustain economically continuing dependence on a resource that is going to get more and more expensive over time. As all those things converge, we have to move boldly on energy legislation, and that's what I'll do as the next president.

Overall, it seems pretty clear that Obama is the more environmentally-oriented candidate. Perhaps more importantly, the hard core opposition to enhanced environmental protection and renewable energy comes from the conservative wing of the Republican party. Should McCain win, he will owe them more than Obama would. Moreover, when McCain was pushing his own climate bills in the Senate, he had trouble getting the votes of his conservative Republican pals. Still the good news remains that the President with the worst environmental record in our lifetime will be leaving office in January, 2009. No matter what happens we will all be able to breathe easier…. or hopefully continue to breathe.

I am grateful for the research assistance of Rachel Dannefer, a graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.