But what does Romney, Bachmann and Perry say about environmental and climate issues? Below is a quick summary on the three front-runners and just where they stand politically when it comes to the climate and our environment.

As a quick note before I start I must say that it’s sad to see that the American climate debate has taken a completely wrong direction since the last elections. The former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, who proudly said he was a “coal booster” and his (joke to a) Vice President Sarah Palin who in the elections couldn’t even name a single man-made cause to climate change, supported a cap-and-trade system in the previous election. But none of the three Republican front-runners would today even consider a cap-and-trade system in the US. And somehow Rick Perry’s and Michele Bachmann’s rhetoric sounds remarkably similar to the Norwegian terrorist’s crazy ramblings about climate change being some sort of “eco-Marxist plot”. It is also sad that Mitt Romney is facing such strong criticism among Republican voters for his (weak) pro-climate and pro-science stance. It shouldn’t be “political suicide” to believe in basic climate science these days.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry is an religious, right-wing conservative who currently is the Governor of Texas. Many political commentators have likened Perry and his cowboy-like rhetoric and style to the former President George W. Bush. Which might say a lot where he stands political on environmental issues considering Bush’s awful climate record.

From his statements regarding climate change one can clearly see that Perry is a global warming denier. Perry wrote in his book Fed Up! that he believes that Al Gore and climate scientists belongs to a “secular carbon cult”, and that global warming is a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Here is a quote from his book:

“For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned. . . .

And it’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren’t buying it.”

When Perry campaigned for Governor in Texas last year he was labeled as one of the twelve dirties state office candidates in the country by the Texas League of Conservation Voters. “Rick Perry has consistently put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of protecting our natural resources and working to make Texas a leader in the new clean energy economy,” said David Weinberg, Executive Director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters. Jonathan Hiskes wrote a longer summary about Perry’s environmental record last year saying that while Perry fights climate action he embraces wind power. He also writes that Perry “relishes his role as a foe of national climate action” and that he have said that the climate bill that passed the House in 2009 was as an “economic disaster”. Perry has also tried to fast-track permits for 11 new coal plants in Texas.

According to the liberal blog Thinkprogress, Perry has received massive amounts of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry:

“Since his 1998 candidacy to be George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, Perry has raked in $117,091,642 in campaign contributions, with the oil and gas industry the top contributor. Big oil has fueled Rick Perry’s career, the top industry contributor at $11,189,103, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Top oil company contributions include $189,188 from Exxon Mobil, $147,895 from Valero Energy, and $116,000 from Koch Industries.”

So what kind of solutions does Perry have for Texas, which currently is experiencing one of the state’s worst droughts in history most likely due to man-made climate change? Well, Perry believes that the only viable solution is prayers. Jeff Goodell over at the Rolling Stone magazine writes:

“The other day, Texas Governor Rick Perry took dramatic action to save his state from the ravages of a changing climate. He issued a proclaimation for Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. For three days, Perry asked Texas to kneel at the pew, or at the foot of their beds, and silently ask God to bring water to their parched state.”

When it comes to EPA Perry says the Environmental Protection Agency and their regulations “are killing jobs all across America” and that he wants the president to “put a moratorium on all regulations across this country.” And like ThinkProgress notes, this would mean complete anarchy and a literal end to the rules of law in the USA.

Michele Bachmann speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is a congress member in the United States House of Representatives and a strong supporter of the populist, right-wing Tea Party movement. Bachmann is, similar to Rick Perry, a conservative right-winger who is supportive of corporations and doesn’t like environmental regulations. She is also a climate change denier.

During a GOP debate in New Hampshire last month, Bachmann said she wanted to stop EPA and repeal the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act:

“What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.”

And just two weeks ago during a campaign rally in Iowa she continued with her attacks against EPA saying that she would lock it down and shut of its lights:

“I pledge to you I’m not a talker. I’m a doer,” she said. “[...] And I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation, ” she said earlier today at a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids. “It will be a new day and a new sheriff in Washington, D.C.”

During a radio interview in 2009 where Bachmann talked about the cap-and-trade bill, which she has described as “tyranny“, that was being debated in the House back then she called on citizens to get “armed and dangerous” in their opposition against the bill. This is what she said:

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

One can wonder that if by “armed and dangerous” Bachmann meant something along the lines of what the Christian right-wing terrorist succeeded with in Norway this summer?

When it comes to climate change Bachmann is just like Rick Perry a global warming denier. During a debate at the House floor on Earth Day in 2009 she claimed that “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature” and that this would somehow disprove man-made climate change.

In 2008 Bachmann said that she believed that climate change was just a hoax and a conspiracy. This is what she said:

“The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax…”

Bachmann also supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) saying the federal protected area would be “perfect for drilling” and that “it beast Saudi Arabia”. But allowing oil drilling in the ANWR is pretty mainstream Republican opinions. Republican John Boehner, who is currently the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said in 2008 while pushing for oil drilling in the area that he didn’t believe that there is any wildlife at all in the ANWR.

Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, also wants to see oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). During a GOP debate in 2007 Romney said that to be able to reach energy independence USA needs to increase all their domestic energy productions. This would include investing more in nuclear energy and “more drilling in ANWR.”

But unlike Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, Romney has actually supported the idea of a cap-and-trade plan in the US saying he was “convinced” such a plan would be “good for business”. Unfortunately those opinions didn’t last very long. Andrew Schenkel writes:

But in just a few short years, Romney’s cap-and-trade feelings shifted. “We’re going to move our new facilities from the U.S. to China, where they don’t have those agreements. You end up polluting and putting just as much CO2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That’s why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis. They don’t call it ‘America warming.’ They call it ‘global warming.’”

During a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, earlier this summer Romney said that he believes “the world is getting warmer” and that he “believe that humans have contributed to that”. This is what he said:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. “It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Al Gore even (sort-of) applauded Romney for ignoring the “anti-science wing of the Republican Party”. But Gore also noted that “we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis”. Romney, unlike his fellow Republican presidential candidates, believing in global warming sounds good, don’t it? But just like Alexander Burns over at Politico notes, Romney is still not completely sure about the warming or how much responsibility we humans actually have:

“But Romney also says he’s not sure how much the globe is warming or how much responsibility humans bear, or what exactly the best climate policies would be. That’s not exactly a bold, maverick stance, and would seem to put Romney within the same ballpark on the issue as George W. Bush.”

And just like the other two Republican front-runners, Romney doesn’t think the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. Darren Samuelsohn over at Politico writes that Romney doesn’t believe that carbon pollution is a threat to public health:

“”Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.” Last week, Romney responded to a question at a town hall meeting in Derry, N.H., by saying he doesn’t think carbon pollution threatens public health or merits regulation under the Clean Air Act.”

So while Romney at least acknowledges climate change he is still unsure about it and has no real plans or ideas on how we can combat the climate crisis. Last week in Iowa, Romney said that “corporations are people, my friends.” So it seems we shouldn’t put much hope to Romney that if he gets elected as president he would enforce environmental regulations against his friends, the corporations.

Photo credit: Photo Mojo

John McCain, the Republican Presidential candidate, who failed to mention climate change in his acceptance speech, who picked a climate change denier as his running mate, who won’t regulate greenhouse gases, whose energy plan is mainly about offshore drilling and nuclear energy is continuing on his failed environmental and energy trail.

While campaigning in coal-rich Pennsylvania, the Washington Post reports, McCain promised he is a “coal booster” and that he would encourage the export of coal to other countries. He also claimed that coal will “create hundreds of thousands of jobs”.

“My friends, you know what Senator Obama said about a year ago, he said he had not been a, quote, coal booster,” he said, as the crowd booed. “My friends, I’ve been a coal booster and it’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s going to help restore the economy of the great state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

In reality coal exports in USA is just a tiny little part of the coal industry. According to the Energy Information Administration, only 2 percent of the coal was exported from USA in 2007. And the coal industry hasn’t had “hundreds of thousands of jobs” since the 1950s. Now the coal industry only employ about 80 000 people. And that sum is likely not to go up.

Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said that “U.S. coal exports is a way for the U.S. to export global warming pollution,” and that “instead, we should be exporting wind and solar technology.”

But McCain and his fellow Republicans don’t care about common sense and they are now making so called robocalls in Pennsylvania and other coal-producing states around the U.S. warning that Barack Obama would “bankrupt the coal industry”.

The Climate Progress blog has a nice piece about this that I think you should read:

“Ironically, only the coal industry (and its conservative allies) can bankrupt the coal industry, by continuing to stick its head in the ground and not support funding an aggressive effort to see if carbon capture and storage can work.”

Today you will be able to choose if you want four more years of the same failed politics from George Bush and the Republican Party, or if you want some well-needed change and a way in the right direction for USA and the world. Make your vote count!

Photo credit: soggydan

Joseph Romm, from the Climate Progress blog, writes on Huffington Post that John McCain won’t regulate greenhouse gas emissions if he and Sarah Palin get elected.

Romm writes that McCain does not support mandatory government control of greenhouse gases, something he supported before running for President. Romm also points out the fact that McCain picked a climate change denier as his running mate, that McCain failed to mention climate change in his acceptance speech and that McCain’s chief economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin recently said that “McCain does not agree with the Supreme Court decision that labels carbon dioxide a pollutant and requiring EPA to regulate it.”

“Now the McCain campaign has decided to eliminate the ambiguity entirely in the desperate and erratic final days of his campaign. In her big greenwashing energy speech at an Ohio solar energy company, Palin was as blunt as possible in her prepared (and delivered) remarks:

And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders that they must follow — “so says government”.

The final three words were ones she added, but the prepared text alone leaves no room for doubt. A McCain-Palin administration will not be issuing new orders that businesses must follow to control greenhouse gas emissions. It will use a voluntary or incentive-based approach, one that has never worked in any country to restrain emissions growth.”

Romm also points out 18 other stupid and dangerous standpoints McCain has when it comes to climate change and clean energy. Such as McCain’s gas-tax holiday proposal and that he has voted against clean energy 42 out of 44 times during the past two decades.

If you care about climate change and clean energy you only have once choice, Romm writes, “and it isn’t McCain-Palin.”

The time has come to decide who you will vote for in the 2008 U.S. election. Before I start it should be perfectly clear for everyone that reads this that I am not an American citizen and thus have no right to vote in the election. But, I do have the right to voice my opinion about the candidates and their political stances.

So, who should you vote for? Which one of the candidates is best fit to lead, Barack Obama or John McCain? For me, and the rest of the world, the choice is pretty obvious. Barack Obama should, and needs to be the next President of the United States of America.

When it comes to environmental, energy and climate issues, only Obama stands out as the strong and aggressive candidate with a detailed and comprehensive plan to tackle these problems.

While both candidates support a cap-and-trade system in the U.S. only Obama would enforce it properly. Obama wants to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 compared to McCain’s 60%. Obama also intends to auction off all emission credits, making the polluters pay for the right to pollute. McCain says he instead would give away many of the credit and not make the polluters pay until further “down the line“.

Obama would require 10% of the electricity in USA to come from renewable energy sources by 2012, and 25% by 2025. McCain says he supports renewable energy but hasn’t offered any specific targets or plans. McCain has also been absent when the Senate has been voting to support renewable energy tax credits – four times.

McCain supports the not cost-effective, dangerous and expensive nuclear energy, something that will worsen climate change. Obama realises the downsides of nuclear energy and has said that it’s “not a great option“, mainly because of safety and storage problems and because it requires huge government subsidies.

While both candidates’ supports the “clean coal” lie only Obama calls for a ban on new coal plants that don’t have any carbon capture or sequestration.

McCain is a strong supporter of offshore drilling – something that only will supply 0.6% of the total energy consumption in USA and won’t lower energy or gas prices. Obama has said he will “consider” offshore drilling as a part of a much larger energy plan.

Obama wants to increase fuel economy standards by 4% each year. McCain says he supports higher fuel economy standards. But he hasn’t offered any specific targets.

When you consider the two candidates running mates the choice becomes even easier. The Democratic Vice President candidate Joe Biden has an impressive environmental record. Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice President candidate, on the other hand has an awful environmental record. She is a climate change denier, hates polar bears, and wants to drill in ANWR just to name a few things.

John McCain stands for the same failed and devastating ideas and policies that have been in effect during the last 8 years. We don’t need more of the same, we need change.

The outcome of the election was a blow to the environment and anyone who wants tough actions against climate change. Mitchell Anderson, from the DeSmogBlog, said that “the Canadian election saw little talk of dealing with climate change since stock markets tanked in the final week of the campaign.”

“Newly elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper successfully campaigned on a pro-carbon platform of making burning fossil fuels even cheaper. While carbon taxes ore old hat elsewhere in the world, here in Canada Harper managed to portray the idea as “crazy”, “insane”, and something that would “screw everyone across the country” and “wreck” the economy.”

Anderson continued by saying that “Canada under Stephen Harper will have a far less credible climate policy than virtually any developed country in the world”. He also pointed out that “John McCain is calling for far more stringent carbon cuts than Canada under Harper.”

The Greens in Canada, led by Elizabeth May, failed to win a seat, but their election outcome was still seen as a victory as they managed to raise their share of the popular vote.

“[We] grabbed national attention,” Ms May told supporters, “not because we were tilting at windmills, but because we set out to do something right and we set out to do it for the right reasons.”

It is the Center for Biological Diversity that this year gives their unflattering Dodo Award to Sarah Palin. Why? Because she “has sought to remove endangered species act protection for the polar bear, suppressed and lied about state global warming studies, and denied that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Governor Palin has waged a deceptive, dangerous, and costly battle against the polar bear” said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “Her position on global warming is so extreme, she makes Dick Cheney look like an Al Gore devotee.”

“All global warming deniers are eventually forced to suppress scientific studies, and Palin is no different,” said Suckling. “To maintain her ludicrous opposition to protecting the polar bear in the face of massive scientific consensus, Palin stepped over the line to lie about and suppress government science.”

“Palin’s insistence that Arctic melting is ‘uncertain’ is like someone debating the theory of gravity as they plunge off a cliff,” said Suckling. “It’s hopeless, reckless, and extremely cynical.”

You can read more about the award and why the Center for Biological Diversity gave the award to Sarah Palin here.

The Guardian has even more shocking news about Sarah Palin and her fight against polar bears. They reveal that Sarah Palin got help from known climate change deniers and the oil company ExxonMobil “to back efforts to stop polar bears being protected as an endangered species.”

“In official submissions to the US government’s consultation on the status of the polar bear, Palin and her team referred to at least six scientists who have questioned either the existence of warming as a largely man-made phenomenon or its severity. One paper was partly funded by the US oil company ExxonMobil.”

Kert Davies, research director at Greenpeace US, says that this “shows that she is completely out of touch with the urgency of the climate crisis.”

Tonight is Sarah Palin’s big debate night against the Democratic Vice President candidate Joe Biden. If you want to know more about the two candidates’s stances when it comes to the environment we got all you need to know: Sarah Palin’s awful environmental record and why the League of Conservation Voters Hails Joe Biden.

One fact to note when looking for the candidates policies on their respective websites is that Barack Obama has a category named “Energy and Environment” under the “Issues” section. On the other hand, John McCain has “American Energy” and “Climate Change” listed as separate categories under the “Issues” section. This seemingly subtle difference represents some conflicting policies between the two candidates. While McCain believes in global warming, he is resistant to associate the call for more oil with his global warming concerns because supporting the two issues is a sheer contradiction. In sum, Obama wants to rid our dependence on all oil (not just foreign) and McCain wants to use every available resource needed to end our dependence on foreign oil.

McCain calls his energy plan “The Lexington Project,” which is an all of the above energy solution according to his website. Included is expansion of domestic oil and natural oil exploration, tax credits for automakers and consumers who buy cars with low carbon emissions, $2 billion annually reserved for clean coal technology, 45 new nuclear power plants and he will “encourage”  the market for alternative fuels such as wind, hydro, and solar power. He has greenhouse gas emissions targets listed in the climate change section that includes dropping it 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 66 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Obama calls his plan “comprehensive” and puts added emphasis on new forms of energy. He wants to provide $1,000 to American families through a windfall profits tax, calling it an “Emergency Energy Rebate.”  He will invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to build a clean energy future, and in that same allotted time, rid American dependency of foreign oil. He wants to put one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015 and ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025. In addition, Obama wants to implement an economy–wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Interestingly, by 2050 many of those reading this article still won’t be as old as John McCain is now. Moving on, there are other issues that you may not hear about quite as much.

The use of asbestos in products and the manufacturing industry could come to a close in 2009. Senator Patty Murray introduced the “Ban Asbestos in America Act” that has been introduced and passed by the entire U.S. Senate. However, the bill does contain a harmful pro-industry amendment eliminating coverage for workers exposed to products containing one percent or less of asbestos. CWA and the AFL-CIO will work to have this language omitted in the final Senate-House legislation.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has introduced the “Bruce Vento Asbestos and Prevent Mesothelioma Act of 2008.” This legislation is not expected to be passed by the full house during 2008, so this is basically groundwork in order to get the bill passed in 2009. Right now there are now mesothelioma treatments that result in a cure.

Another bill is the “Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.” These are all supported by the Blue-Green Labor/Environmental Coalition.

With Barack Obama as president and a Congress dominated by democrats, the above legislation should all pass. With John McCain as president, the bills could be vetoed.

In paying for all of these plans, Barack Obama pledges to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans (annual income of $250,000) and raise taxes on oil companies. While John McCain will actually lower taxes for oil companies, he pledges to cut small business taxes and promote fiscal responsibility within the government. He says that with bi-partisan efforts, he can bring the budget to balance by 2013. Until then, expect a dirty fight in efforts toward a cleaner America.

Jesse Herman is the National Awareness Coordinator of the Mesothelioma Cancer Center.

Gristmill also has a lengthy post about Sarah Palin and her record on issues related to energy and the environment. For example they list Sarah Palin’s support to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope and her suggestion to eliminate Alaska’s gas tax.

Gristmill also lists several quotes from Sarah Palin and from people who have reacted to her nomination. Such as this one from Gene Karpinski, the President of the League of Conservation Voters:

“Unfortunately, with her support for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and off our coasts, Governor Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration and their Big Oil friends — policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil.

Governor Palin characterizes McCain’s flip-flop on drilling offshore as a positive step in his transformation from maverick to Big Oil’s best friend. She has implored McCain to change his position against drilling in the Arctic — something she will have plenty of opportunities to pursue as his running mate.

In addition to supporting backward-looking energy policies, Governor Palin has also opposed a crucial clean water initiative, sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and opposed other important wildlife protection measures.”

The post Sarah Palin’s awful environmental record has been updated with the new information.

Last week the Republican presidential contender John McCain announced his choice for running mate and Vice President. John McCain selected a rather unknown 44 year-old women named Sarah Palin from Alaska.

The pro-lifer Sarah Palin, a lifetime member of the NRA, was the former mayor of a town of 9,000 for nearly two years. She wants to teach creationism in schools and is “a firm believer in free market capitalism.” She is also in the centre of the “TrooperGate” scandal currently being unfolded in Alaska. During an interview with Larry Kudlow from CNBC’s “Kudlow & Co” Sarah Palin said that someone needed to explain for her “what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” According to Cindy McCain, “Palin has national security experience because Alaska is close to Russia.”

Already now it’s perfectly clear that Sarah Palin is inappropriate and incompetent for the Vice President position and being one heartbeat away from the presidency for one of the most powerful superpowers in the world.

You could ask yourself why John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, and if he really was sane at that moment. Faye Palin, Palin’s mother-in-law, also wonders that very same question as she said to a New York Daily News reporter that “I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she’s a woman and a conservative.” But it seems not even John McCain liked the idea of Sarah Palin as the Vice President of USA.

We have earlier reported about Joe Biden, the Democrats nominee for Vice President, and his impressive green environmental record. So the question is. How green is really Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin hates polar bears as she doesn’t want to add them to her nation’s list of endangered species, saying “listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.” She has also filed a lawsuit seeking to reverse that very decision.

Sarah Palin wants to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. She also wants more offshore drilling.

Sarah Palin has supported and led Alaska’s efforts to shoot down wolves from airplanes and helicopters.

Sarah Palin denies that global warming is man-made, saying “I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”

Sarah Palin is married to Todd Palin, an oil field production operator from BP. And that is something that surely will become an interest conflict between her and big oil. Sarah Palin has said that she “want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S.” And during a phone interview with the Anchorage Daily News Palin said that “I am happy to and very honored to be asked to do this. I know it’s going to be great for Alaska.”

Jacob from the blog Force Change tells us that Sarah Palin supports mining in Bristol Bay, which could threaten salmon, bears, and caribou. He lists three other major anti-green policies from Sarah Palin and comes to the conclusion that her “overall position towards the environment is quite poor.”

Gristmill also has a lengthy post about Sarah Palin and her record on issues related to energy and the environment. For example they list Sarah Palin’s support to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope and her suggestion to eliminate Alaska’s gas tax.

Gristmill also lists several quotes from Sarah Palin and from people who have reacted to her nomination. Such as this one from Gene Karpinski, the President of the League of Conservation Voters:

“Unfortunately, with her support for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and off our coasts, Governor Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration and their Big Oil friends — policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil.

Governor Palin characterizes McCain’s flip-flop on drilling offshore as a positive step in his transformation from maverick to Big Oil’s best friend. She has implored McCain to change his position against drilling in the Arctic — something she will have plenty of opportunities to pursue as his running mate.

In addition to supporting backward-looking energy policies, Governor Palin has also opposed a crucial clean water initiative, sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and opposed other important wildlife protection measures.”

Sarah Palin is, like I said earlier, still very unknown and we don’t yet know all her standpoints when it comes to the environment. As the election progress continues we will probably find out more. But one thing is for sure. Her environmental record is not even half as good as Joe Biden’s.

So if you want to vote “green” and end George Bush’s last eight years of failed economic and environmental policies John McCain, Sarah Palin nor the Republican Party should be an option for you.

Updates:
- Sarah Palin Wins 2008 Rubber Dodo Award
- Sarah Palin can’t name a single man-made cause to climate change

Besides the fact that John McCain is not telling the truth about what Obama said he is also completely wrong about the effectiveness of proper tire inflation.

According to the gas-guzzlers at Auto Alliance of BMW, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Mazda, Mercedez Benz, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen:

• The Department of Energy estimates that 1.2 billion gallons of fuel were wasted in 2005 as a result of driving on under-inflated tires.
• Fuel efficiency is reduced by 1% for every 3 PSI that tires are under-inflated.
• Proper tire inflation can save the equivalent of about 1 tank of gas per year.
• Proper tire inflation also reduces CO2 emissions.
• Experts estimate that 25% of automobiles are running on tires with lower than recommended pressure, because people don’t know how to check their tires or don’t realize that tires naturally lose air over time.

Later at a political rally in Berea Barack Obama responded to John McCain’s attacks:

“They’re lying about what my energy plan is. They’re making fun of a step that every expert says would reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.”

And during a town-hall meeting in Indiana today Barack Obama responded even harder:

“Senator McCain’s energy plan reads like an early Christmas list for oil and gas lobbyists. And it’s no wonder – because many of his top advisors are former oil and gas lobbyists.”

You can read all about Barack Obama’s “Energy Plan for America” here.