League of Conservation Voters Candidate Rankings UPDATED

So, there's been a lot said on here in the past about who was the best candidate on the environment.  A lot of people have said Edwards, in fact, there was a diary on the rec list yesterday about how Gore should endorse him.

Well, the League of Conservation Voters thinks he'd choose Obama.  Here's their rankings, based on their votes in congress ONLY (although there are candidate submitted profiles as well):

Obama - 96
Kucinich - 92
Clinton - 90
Biden - 84
Richardson -82
Dodd - 77
Edwards - 59
Paul - 30
McCain - 26
Brownback - 14
Thompson - 12
Tancredo -11
Hunter - 9

You can go here: http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/ to see the numbers and read their profiles.  I don't know about you, but I choose substance over rhetoric, and I trust the league of conservation voters quite a bit.

So, it would seem that based on actual votes in congress, Obama is your choice.  If Obama is your choice, and you can spare some change, consider donating.  Your donation can be as small as $5.  Thanks.

UPDATE: Elise pointed out below that Obama received a 100 from the Illinois chapter of the league of conservation voters for his work in the state senate in 2004, and she's looking into numbers previous to that.  Obama's 100 percent award from the Ill. chapter

One more thing to clarify, for those who said Edwards' record being poor was due to missed votes or small, unimportant votes.  Thanks to Adam B, these are some of those votes:

In 2003, Edwards' "bad votes" were against a Boxer amendment to ensure that companies remain fully liable for problems caused by renewable fuels and fuel additives, and in favor of a dangerous water pumping project in north central North Dakota.

In 2002, his "bad votes" included votes:

   * against increasing fuel economy standards for pickup trucks
   * against an increase in renewable energy use by electric utilities
   * against a bill the LCV described as one which would "ensure that taxpayer dollars would not subsidize new factory farms or the further concentration of existing operations," as well as prohibiting "the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the construction of manure lagoons in areas highly prone to flooding."
   * against another amendment which would have ensured that renewable fuels were not subject to a lesser liability standard than other motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives
   * in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

And, via faithfull:

In 1999, Edwards and Dodd voted for MORE mountaintop removal coal-mining in Appalachia, including letting our rivers and streams be buried by toxic mountaintop removal coal-mining waste. It was a blantant pander to coal-baron Robert Byrd and the big coal companies. Edwards has still not said a word about the practice, to my knowledge, despite his having done a "poverty tour" there.

Obama has spoken out against mountaintop removal, even in Kentucky, and he has called strip mining "an environmental disaster."

Kucinich has also been great on the subject, co-sponsoring legislation that would end the dumping of toxic waste from MTR sites into our rivers and streams.

Richardson and Dodd released statements against the Bush Administrions attempts to expand the practice last month.

I was just ddiscouraged to find out that Edwards and Dodd, two supposed "progressives" voted to expand the practice that has already wiped out a million acres of Appalachia.  I mean...c'mon.

•  TIPS for the environment

  by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:02:42 AM PDT

•  Thorough website

  Detailed questionaires, long-term candidate rankings, etc.  Here's some of what Sen. Obama told LCV:

  Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions. As president, my first priority to combat global warming will be enacting an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80%) for the U.S. to bear an equitable share of the global emissions reduction burden. I will devote significant resources from a permit auction toward accelerating the development and deployment of low carbon technologies, addressing the economic challenges imposed on key industrial sectors, and providing meaningful incentives for action by developing countries.        

  Another top priority for my energy and global warming agenda will be changing the cars we drive and the fossil fuels we burn. I will increase fuel efficiency standards to the limits of technological and economic feasibility; introduce legislation to lift the 60,000-per-manufacturer cap on buyer tax credits to encourage more Americans to buy ultra-efficient vehicles; and encourage automakers to make fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles by helping them shoulder the health care costs of their retirees. Domestic automakers will get health care assistance in exchange for investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition, I will provide automakers with generous tax incentives for retooling assembly plants.    

  To change the fuels we burn, I introduced legislation to enact a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard that will reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of passenger vehicle fuels sold in the U.S. by 10 percent in 2020 and require additional reductions of 1% annually thereafter."

  Environmental health, including air pollution, will be a major priority of mine. For example, the EPA estimates that every year, more than one in six children could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb.  This is unacceptable, and we can do better. As president, I will significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is deposited in oceans, lakes, and rivers, which in turn will reduce the amount that people ingest when eating fish.  

  Lead poisoning in children plummeted significantly since the banning of lead in paint and fuels -- yet today, there are 400,000 American children who continue to suffer from lead poisoning, most of these children from low-income families. As president, I will call on Congress to enact legislation I have introduced during my time in the Senate that would protect American children from lead poisoning. This legislation would prevent children’s products from containing lead, provide incentives for property owners to eliminate or contain lead paint in homes with low-income young children or women of child-bearing age, and require that all child care facilities outside the home be lead-safe within five years."

  by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:09:22 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for posting that Adam

    Glad some people are paying attention.

    by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:11:28 AM PDT

    •  Just one clarification

      Those numbers are based solely on their voting histories, and not on the 2007 questionaire.  And via the LCV website, you can go back through each Congress's scorecards to figure out where those numbers came from.

      by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:16:39 AM PDT

      •  Yeah. Of course those questionaires aren't

        really binding.  They can answer however they'd like, and usually do-regardless of their possibly conflicting voting history.

        by terrapin station84 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:16:07 AM PDT

•  pfff

  ...based on their votes in congress and their profiles they personally submitted

  How do they rank on the votes alone?

  by RequestedUsername on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:15:53 AM PDT

  •  As I just said ...

    ... I think the numbers are just based on the voting records.

    by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:17:08 AM PDT

    •  My mistake

      I'll fix that.

      by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:17:52 AM PDT

•  Thompson had a couple of zeros!

  Obama does look the best but he's only had 2 years of ratings.

  John Edwards actually started out with a score of "100" and went downhill from there with a "17" in 2004. Sure the presidential campaign probably interfered with his voting schedule, but still he went fromm 100 to 88 to 59 to 37 to 17. yikes!

  Thanks for this diary.

  by tgray on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:19:52 AM PDT

  •  the details

    2002. 59% -- 9 good votes, 7 bad votes.

    2003. 37% -- 7 good votes, 2 bad votes, 9 absent.

    2004. 17% -- 1 good vote, 5 absent.

    by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:25:51 AM PDT

    •  Yikes, so it was not just about missing votes n/t

      by speck tater on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:26:59 AM PDT

      •  But substantially about missing votes ...

        ... without missing votes, 59% is his lowest score rather than his average.

        There is also the question of priorities, where support or opposition by a candidate for destroying the planet with a Coal to Liquid policy for pursuing Energy Independence would be a bigger issue than a vote on establishing a specific national park.

        Indeed, in addition to rhetoric and past legislative voting record, there is also the issue of the policies that they are running on. Both Senators Clinton and Obama decided to straddle the question of whether or not to support the IPCC consensus on required CO2 emissions reduction, by co-sponsoring in January the Lieberman-McCain legislation that falls well short, and then co-sponsoring in May (and in time for things like the LCV profiles) the Sanders-Boxer legislation that satisfies the IPCC target. So they can say they support an 83% reduction, and they can also say (though they certainly won't in public) that they support a 65% reduction with up to 30% offsets outside the system.

        by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:45:02 AM PDT

        •  "a vote on establishing a specific national park"

          None of his "bad votes" were about that.  LCV makes all their information available; look it up.

          by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:48:00 AM PDT

          •  I'm so happy that you concede the ...

            ... point of that specific argument, which I take to be the substance of choosing to sidestep the point of that specific argument.

            by BruceMcF on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:09:23 AM PDT

            •  I'm fine with Obama on CO2

              (And read his LCV statement on that); the CTL thing is something I've never been thrilled with, but at least he has a local excuse on that one.

              by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:14:30 AM PDT

•  That does it.

  I'm really not voting for Hunter now.

  by goffnews on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:20:10 AM PDT

  •  Thompson's score

    was even worse

    by tgray on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:22:54 AM PDT

    •  haha

      thank god he doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning the general.  He'd be a gift from heaven in the general.

      by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:23:40 AM PDT

      •  none of them have a chance

        With the war and environment and healthcare being the big 3 issues for a clear majority of Americans I don't see how any Republican can win the presidency (fairly) in 2008. They are on the wrong side of every important issue.

        plus they're fast becoming the party of scandals and lies.

        by tgray on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:55:33 AM PDT

•  And, Obama glady gives Gore

  the kudos he deserves.

  Prior to his speech, Obama told reporters that Americans are ready for tough new environmental measures and have been called to action partly by "An Inconvenient Truth," a film featuring Al Gore.

  "Vice President Gore, I think, deserves a lot of credit for this," Obama said. "His film captivated not just the country, but the world. But you're also just seeing mounting evidence of the severity of the problem and the urgency of us needing to take steps."

  There is good reason for Gore to get behind Obama.

  by speck tater on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:22:02 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    I really hope that happens.

    by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:23:11 AM PDT

  •  Edwards when asked who he admired he said gore

    by yann123 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:04:52 PM PDT

•  What was Gore's own record

  and how would it stack up against these.  That may be a better predictor, although times have certainly changed since he was a legislator, of how he might go about choosing, e.g., TN and NC both have extensive forest reserves and count loggers among their constituents.  Given the understandable fears regarding the health of the Great Lakes and the rivers of the rust belt, Obama may have greater environmental concerns, i.e., let's not forget that legislators represent people from their districts and may not necessarily politic the same way when presented with national responsibilities over their legislative constituents.

  by lgrooney on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:35:00 AM PDT

  •  These weren't logging votes.

    In 2003, Edwards' "bad votes" were against a Boxer amendment to ensure that companies remain fully liable for problems caused by renewable fuels and fuel additives, and in favor of a dangerous water pumping project in north central North Dakota.

    In 2002, his "bad votes" included votes:

    • against increasing fuel economy standards for pickup trucks
    • against an increase in renewable energy use by electric utilities
    • against a bill the LCV described as one which would "ensure that taxpayer dollars would not subsidize new factory farms or the further concentration of existing operations," as well as prohibiting "the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the construction of manure lagoons in areas highly prone to flooding."
    • against another amendment which would have ensured that renewable fuels were not subject to a lesser liability standard than other motor vehicle fuels or fuel additives
    • in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

    by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:46:25 AM PDT

    •  wow,

      I didn't realize he was for Yucca Mountain.

      by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:53:14 AM PDT

    •  So, Edwards has his corporate ghosts too

      pickup trucks - understandable given the constituency but fail to see how it could not be presented, by someone wishing to lead, as a means of reducing their fuel costs, reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies, a/o as a means of bringing the forests in the region back to health since climate change with the potential for dramatic weather changes and geographic disruption of pests could be devastating to both forests and agriculture and tourism; lack of leadership a/o bowing to Detroit's interests

      renewable energies - good for the coal companies

      factory farms - corporates win again

      lesser liability - gift again to factory farms who benefited greatly from renewables legislation as so much was directed at things like ethanol

      Yucca - gotta do something with the waste but not there (I vote for subduction zones a/o solar launches); not sure who benefited

      by lgrooney on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:47:26 AM PDT

•  Mountaintop removal

  In 1999, Edwards and Dodd voted for MORE mountaintop removal coal-mining in Appalachia, including letting our rivers and streams be buried by toxic mountaintop removal coal-mining waste. It was a blantant pander to coal-baron Robert Byrd and the big coal companies. Edwards has still not said a word about the practice, to my knowledge, despite his having done a "poverty tour" there.

  Obama has spoken out against mountaintop removal, even in Kentucky, and he has called strip mining "an environmental disaster."

  Kucinich has also been great on the subject, co-sponsoring legislation that would end the dumping of toxic waste from MTR sites into our rivers and streams.

  Richardson and Dodd released statements against the Bush Administrions attempts to expand the practice last month.

  I was just ddiscouraged to find out that Edwards and Dodd, two supposed "progressives" voted to expand the practice that has already wiped out a million acres of Appalachia.  I mean...c'mon.

  by faithfull on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:52:08 AM PDT

•  Might be useful to go back to his State Senate

  record and look there as well.

  I have to teach in a few minutes so I don't have a lot of time, but here's one link to something I found at the Illinois League of Conservation Voters website. Obama received a 100% from them for his votes in 2004 as a State Senator.

  I'm going to try and search out the links to previous years when I get back from class in an hour or so, unless someone else does it in the meantime.

  The thing is, Obama has always had a good environmental record. This isn't a surprise to me. In fact, during the Senate election the Environment was one of Obama's most important issues. He tied talking about the Environment in with health care issues in Illinois - particularly talking a lot about air pollution and asthma rates in the inner city (and with a focus on children). This is one of the things I like best about Obama - he connects all the issues together. Protecting the environment isn't just about saving trees and wildlife, it's about saving ourselves too and Obama frames the discussion that way which is particularly helpful because it makes it an important issue for ALL listeners -  

  by Elise on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:52:58 AM PDT

  •  Great followup! Thanks.

    by turnnoblindeye on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:53:53 AM PDT

    •  oooh....couldn't get access to records

      earlier than 2003, BUT found some GREAT stuff anyway!

      1. From a 2004 Grist article, Barack Star:Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's got green cred, by Amanda Griscom -- here are a vew choice paragraphs - although honestly, read the whole thing...I wish I could put it all here!

      After getting a law degree from Harvard, Obama became a civil-rights lawyer and then in 1996 was elected to the Illinois state senate, representing the 13th district on Chicago's South Side, where he distinguished himself as a leader on environmental and public-health issues. In 2003, Obama was one of six state senators to receive a 100 Percent Environmental Voting Record Award from the Illinois Environmental Council.

      (...it goes on to talk about other things he's done...)

      The list doesn't stop there. Obama has fought for tougher standards on diesel engines, waged battles against urban sprawl and the destruction of Illinois' wetlands, and mobilized residents in Chicago's lowest-income neighborhoods to block toxic dumping in their communities.

      So, you can at least go back to 2003 then with a good environmental record in the State Senate. My guess is that it goes back further than that, but I haven't found anything else just yet.

      by Elise on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:07:20 AM PDT

•  This is an impt diary turnoblindeye

  as it clearly illustrates just how very very bad Republicans are on the environment and how awesome Dems are in comparison.

  Maybe you should sex up the title a bit to get more views and recs?

  Maybe use a candidates name in the title?

  by tgray on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:05:27 AM PDT

•  I'm surprised Obama scores so high, considering

  his support of liquid coal. Maybe that wasn't factored in yet.

  by tigercourse on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:16:28 AM PDT

  •  Well, remember

    When it came time to vote, he opposed the Bunning amendment and only supported Tester's limited subsidies (as did Clinton).

    by Adam B on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:23:36 AM PDT

•  Salon.com article: Obama on energy for '08

  Aug. 27, 2007 |
  "In his two and a half years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has been active -- even hyperactive -- on matters of energy and the environment. The Democrat from Illinois has introduced or cosponsored nearly 100 eco-related bills on issues ranging from lead poisoning and mercury emissions to auto fuel economy and biofuels promotion. Along the way, he has racked up a notable 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters."

  The rest of the article is here:

  Link

  by evora on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:27:31 AM PDT

•  Richardson Recieved an A from NM Conservationists

  Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Bill Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given.  

  On the issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050.  But will Richardson be true to his word if he's elected President?  Richardson is proving by his actions as Governor of New Mexico on global warming that the answer is yes.

  That is the beginning of a diary I wrote on Richardson's environmental record.  If you want to learn more, visit http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Stephen Cassidy on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 11:40:25 AM PDT

•  Video of IL Environmental Leaders Endorsing Obama

  http://link.brightcove.com/...

  by jb1125 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 12:35:52 PM PDT

•  GOBAMA car MPG improvement bill

  by DCusaVietnamVet on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:27:14 PM PDT

  •  discusses the Liquid Coal controversy

    This interview should be helpful when discussing Obama with environmental activists who are unsure where the Senator stands:
    http://www.grist.org/...

    Here's a great intro...

    In his two and a half years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has been active -- even hyperactive -- on matters of energy and the environment. The Democrat from Illinois has introduced or cosponsored nearly 100 eco-related bills on issues ranging from lead poisoning and mercury emissions to auto fuel economy and biofuels promotion. Along the way, he's racked up a notable 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

    The interview also discusses the Liquid Coal controversy and other issues

    by DCusaVietnamVet on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:32:54 PM PDT

•  John Edwards

  John Edwards is the greenest candidate--he led the pack with the first and most aggressive plan to reduce global warming, and is opposed to liquid coal and nuclear energy, which both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton favor.  

  His scores are 100% and 88% for his first and second years, respectively.  In 2003 and 2004, when he was campaigning, he scores dropped to 37% and 17% because absences are counted against you.  John Kerry, whom LCV endorsed in 2004, had scores of 53% and 17% in 2003 and 2004 because of absences due to campaigning.  When you are campaigning for president in a money-driven society, you must be out on the campaign trail.

  Also, John Edwards has been out of the Senate for the past three years--so the system is really comparing apples and oranges.  How do we rate candidates like Bill Richardson, a governor?  Do we think about Barack Obama's average being based on only two years?  If we did that with John Edwards, his average would be in the 90s.  Also, consider that Barack Obama almost voted for Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" but later admitted he did not because it favored western coal interests over eastern coal interests www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

  Here are some key bits of information that are missing from your "Presidential Profile" on John Edwards:

  *The LCV chart, below, shows that John Edwards has the most aggressive policy to halt global warming:

  pol.moveon.org/townhall/climate/lcv_chart.pdf -

  *Senator Edwards' global warming plan was also described by LCV, itself, as the most comprehensive:

  http://johnedwards.com/...

  *John Edwards decisively won a poll among nearly 100,000 MoveOn members  for his plan on global warming http://johnedwards.com/...

  *Grist.org summarized Edwards' plan as the most aggressive:

  http://www.grist.org/...

  *Jimmy Carter recently came out and all-but-endorsed John Edwards.  Edwards' strong environmental policies were the first thing President Carter mentioned in his support of Edwards:

  http://www.cnn.com/...

  *Last, but not least, Steve Kirsch, an philanthropist, former supporter of Al Gore, and a strong environmentalist, did an in-depth study of the three leading candidates.  Mr. Kirsch is endorsing John Edwards mainly because of Edwards' strong commitment to the environment:

  http://skirsch.com/...

  by Kakie on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 07:26:12 PM PDT

•  Obama supports nuclear

  Edwards does not support Liquid coal,coal in general and nuclear.

  by yann123 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:03:47 PM PDT

•  Thank you for this diary, I'm changing my sig

  I'm now backing Obama!   Woot!

  by pontechango on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 07:56:40 PM PDT