It's Not Easy Being Green ... At least not for these three
![]()
How green is Sen. Hillary Clinton? (Bloomberg)
By Lynne
With the Pennsylvania primary falling on Earth Day, running as a “green” candidate makes a lot of sense. But every mainstream article pretty much says the same: Clinton and Obama are practically indistinguishable on the environment. According to Newsweek, both Democrats
“aim for a reduction of 80 percent (of carbon emissions) from 1990 levels by the year 2050, which most scientists think is the minimum necessary to head off the worst effects of climate change.”
Gee, policies to meet the bare minimum necessary. Change is really in the air ...
McCain even lays claim to some serious eco-cred (although it’s still not enough to make up for that ZERO score from the League of Conservation Voters). The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 was the first climate change bill introduced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it lost 55-43. A later version received even less support due to the addition of billions in taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear energy industry.
Speaking of which, want to hear a dirty secret? Nuclear industry executives and employees have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama and Clinton. Clinton is apparently agnostic on the issue, but with Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant just 24 miles north of NYC and millions of New Yorkers in the peak injury zone, I get nervous when McCain and Obama make supportive noises about nuclear power. And don’t get me started on the exploitation of indigenous lands for uranium mining, nuclear testing and radioactive waste dumping.
Enough of the doom and gloom (that’s so Al Gore 2000), it’s time for a green makeover.
(continued)
Continue reading "It's Not Easy Being Green ... At least not for these three" »