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.