none of the above

[Guest guest]

None of the candidates are talking about environmental health

RELATED ARTICLES

Obama,Clinton top McCain on environment votes: report

Campaign puts bid to solve climate change ahead

Clinton, Obama shake up politics of identity

Obama, Clinton agree: one of us to win White House

/top_stories/article/31814

Who would do a better job protecting the environment as president? Hillary

Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain?

 

A glance at the records the three senators have racked up over the last three

years makes it pretty clear that either of the Democrats would be a greater

advocate for the planet than the Republican. The League of Conservation Voters

releases a voting scorecard that rates all members of the House and Senate in

every Congressional session. In the109th Congress (2005-2006), Barack Obama

voted to protect the environment 96% of the time; Hillary Clinton did so 89% of

the time. So far in the 110th Congress, Obama has supported the environment 67%

of the time, while Hillary has a 73% favorable rating (both of the candidates

missed several votes, presumably while they were out campaigning, which counts

against them in the tally).

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain racked up a mere 41% positive approval rating in

the 109th Congress; so far, in the 110th, he's got zero. That's right: in 2007

on no issue did he vote to protect the environment, according to the LCV

scorecard. So the choice between the candidates -- or at least between the

parties the candidates represent -- is very clear.

 

 

 

 

 

But what happens when you look specifically at the issues? Among all candidates,

the entire debate right now essentially revolves around their positions on

energy policy, and specifically on global warming. (You can read a quick summary

of each candidate's positions over at New American Village, along with links to

each of the candidates' web sites.)

 

While our energy future is clearly a priority, it's startling that none of the

candidates' environmental proposals consider citizens' exposure to toxic

substances, water pollution, or air pollution - the issues that connect human

health and the environment. Where do any of the candidates stand on

reauthorizing Superfund legislation to clean up toxic waste sites? Closing

loopholes in the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to decrease threats to our health

as well as that of wildlife? Quelling the rise in asthma rates, especially among

kids? Initiating research to understand what appear to be the increasing links

between environmental health and breast cancer, autism, and learning

disabilities?

 

 

 

These issues aren't on any candidate's agenda - but they should be, especially

given the importance of the women's vote in the 2008 election. Women and

children are disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation (e.g.,

women suffer more heart attacks than men in cities with poor air quality). The

candidate who breaks away from the party line on energy to address the links

between pollution and human health could muster a real advantage as the race

tightens and voters look for ways to distinguish among their choices.

 

 

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

Confucius