The protection of our environment is one of the most important issues to me. Recently, Ive seen some discussion concerning which of the Democratic '08 hopefuls is the most environmentally friendly. The arguments thus far have generally been supported by a wide variety of policy positions and roll call votes. Since one could probably produce negative or positive examples for each of the candidates, these arguments are rather weak. As a result, I went back through the League of Conservation Voters Scorecards between 1980 and 2006 to compare the candidates.
While it is clear that the candidates have been in office at different times and their positions on issues may have evolved since their Congressional voting days, I believe this comparison of actual voting records provides the best comparison on environmental issues possible given the often wide distances between election rhetoric and voting realities.
The LCV Scorecard:
represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including energy, environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs.
In 2005, those 20 organizations consisted of:
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Sierra Club
National Wildlife Federation
Environmental Working Group
Marine Fish Conservation Network
National Environmental Trust
Defenders of Wildlife
American Lung Association
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Republicans for Environmental Protection
The Wilderness Society
Population Action International
National Parks Conservation Association
The Humane Society of the United States
Alaska Wilderness League
World Wildlife Fund
Environmental Defense
National Resources Defense Council
Union of Concerned Scientists
Friends of the Earth
Data:
First, I will provide the lifetime LCV scorecard averages (Rounded to the nearest percent) for all of the candidates:
Obama (2005-2006) 98
Kucinich (1997-2006) 93
Clinton (2001-2006) 89
Biden (1981-2006 ['96 is missing]) 88
Dodd (1980-2006 ['90 & '96 are missing]) 85
Richardson (1983-1996) 80
Edwards (1999-2004) 63
Since the candidates were in Congress at different times, I broke down the different time periods to see if there were any changes:
2005-2006
Kucinich: 100
Obama: 98
Biden: 95
Dodd: 95
Clinton: 83
2001-2004
Kucinich: 95
Biden: 93
Clinton: 91
Dodd: 87
Edwards: 50
1999-2000
Kucinich: 91
Biden: 89
Edwards: 89
Dodd: 88
1997-1998
Dodd: 100
Biden: 88
Kucinich: 87
1983-1996
Biden (No data for 1996): 86
Dodd (No data for 1990 & 1996): 81
Richardson: 80
Analysis:
I think it is clear that Obama has done well in his 2 years since he's outperformed everyone but Kucinich. 2 years is a short record but I know he was recognized for his work in Illinois as well.
While Obama's lifetime average is better than that of Kucinich, Kucinich tops all other candidates in three of time periods in which he appears and only does worse in his first two years in office.
Clinton's record over her term is pretty good but compared to the other candidates, her last year has been terrible. While Obama, Kucinich, Biden, and Dodd all scored 100 in 2006, Clinton scored 71.
I didn't really know much about Biden or Dodd concerning the environment and was pleasantly suprised that they have averaged 88 and 85 respectively over the course of 27 years. Biden's score actually improved from each of the different time periods to the next.
I had hoped for better that an 80 score from Richardson. Even when considering the different time period, he ranks below Biden and Dodd. I do think he has evolved since his time in Congress after seing some of his work in New Mexico as Governor.
Edwards was the biggest disappointment. I didn't realize he had such a terrible record on the environment while he was in the Senate. His score of 63 over his term is bad enough but his numbers actually went down almost every year, from a high of 100 in 2000 to a low of 17 in 2004. Clearly his missed votes hurt him (Kerry scored the same in 2004) but even in 2002, Edwards only scored 59. Hopefully his views have evolved since leaving the Senate.
As of right now, Clark and Gore are not running. Clark has no legislative record and Gore's is pretty disappointing. Between 1980 and 1992, he scored an average of 66 (the least of all candidates during the time period). However, I do think that the Al Gore of 2007 is obviously much different than the Al Gore of 1980-1992. After all, he has made Global Warming his issue. I am unaware of Clark's record on the environment.
All in all, we are lucky to have many candidates with strong environmental records. One need only look at the 2006 Republican scores of Brownback(29), McCain(29), Hagel(14), Hunter(0), Tancredo(8) and Paul(25) to see how much of a difference there is between the parties when it comes to the environment.
These numbers are a good starting point for all of us to analyze what the candidates have actually done in the past in terms of the environment instead of buying into soundbites about possible future actions. Nonetheless, policy proposals are also very important and hopefully they will build upon their records with specific environmental plans as the primary season goes on.
UPDATE:
Please do leave other environmental issues in the comments, whether they be plans, awards, etc. By no means do I think this is the be all and end all of who's who on the environment. Simply a starting point.