I think the problem at this point is that neither candidate has given us enough of their definite positions on the environment. Though I agree, Obama is more explicit than McCain.

McCain has said in the past that he supports a cap and trade system to deal with global warming, and, as the quote above details, to get biofuels into the market. However, I would put a large sum of money down onto the fact that if he is elected he will either switch positions, or if a cap and trade system is established (legislatively or by EPA regulation) it will be a voluntary cap. His selection of Palin is, I think, telling of this unfortunate result.

Gota love a writer who can put their personal beliefs aside and give fair and accurate opinion. If if anybody knows of such a person please let me know.

Matt, I haven't liked seeing political posts on this site in the past. They have been very biased and short on facts. It is nice to see that you have taken the time to research both sides, and provide an informative article (with a little personal oppinion) as opposed to a persuasive article (with little fact).

Your points are all valid, however Obama makes a lot of promises. What happens when food prices continue to go up due to biofuel? What happens when we can't reach 25% by 2025? He won't even be the President then if he wins. Anyone can promise things. The problem with any promises made by politicians is there is zero accountability for them.
McCain's proposals are more realistic and are grounded in current technology and capability. Everyone would love to be using renewable energy to it's full extent tomorrow, but the reality is that we need more energy now and it's not going to come from solar and wind power until the technologies are competitive on an economic basis.

After reading your first stab at this, I will say that you did manage to take a reasonably objective position and I appreciate that. I do however feel wary about this site becoming too politicized as to turn off newbie greenies.

I would be interested in seeing you compare / contrast McCain's environmental cred against that of the republican party as a whole. It might not suit your political purposes, but I feel it would be interesting.

What about some of the third party candidates ?

Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney ?

This isn't a two party system, and I bet there are other TreeHugger readers that won't be voting Obama/McCain this year.

jafoca,

the unfortunate thing about comparing statements of McCain to the republican party as a whole, is that his positions seem to differ from years past to his views now. So it's tricky to include his views from the past, since he's changed his opinion on many things while he's been a candidate for the presidency. As a result, you don't know whether he's actually changed, or is just saying different things.

same would go for Obama, though being younger and having less DC experience, it's not as hard for him, because he hasn't been making public statements on these issues for as long as McCain has.

@Jack:
"This isn't a two party system"... what rock are you living under? Everyone can pretend that we have a democracy with multiple parties, but when everything outside of the top two fails to gander even 5% of the vote, I'm sorry, in my book that's the definition of a two party system. Like so many other things in the free-market western world, the aura of "choice" is actually no such thing, and instead is a limited set of very restrained sources, bought to you by the military industrial complex. To pretend that real choice exists is just being silly. Who cares what Ralph Nader thinks about the environment (hint, we know already because he's told us numerous times) - it doesn't matter because he's never going to get into power and live out those dreams. If a 3rd choice stands zero chance of being elected, then it's not a real choice is it?

TH should continue doing a great job on reporting the views of the people who actually stand a chance of getting into office and doing something about it ! This is not defeatism, just realism.

Sure, we all want zero carbon and 100% renewable energy. And I want rainbows and unicorns in my backyard too. Obama's plan fails to take into consideration the SHORT-term goal of achieving energy independence while McCain believes in drilling oil/gas short term while, at the same time, developing alternative sources on all fronts, which will be LONG-term endeavor. It's extremely ignorant to castigate McCain simply because he has a plan for both the short-term and long-term. And it would be foolish to assume that we can make much headway in developing renewable energy technologies without the proper financial situation, which means our reliance on imported sources of energy must end yesterday.

Boo. Everyone's main issue should be the supreme court. There will likely be 2, maybe 3, supreme court nominations in the next 4 years. Do you want the court to be completely right wing? Or do you want to have a balanced court? It's really that simple. McCain will certainly pick ultra right wingers, toppling the already right-heavy balance on the supreme court.

@Jack: Sorry to say it, but this IS a 2 party system. Voting for a 3rd party candidate is better than not voting at all, but worse if you are taking votes away from Obama. The issues of the day are just too pressing to tool around with 3rd party candidates. That's the reality. War. Global warming. A looming Energy and Economic crisis. Now is just not the right time. We don't have the luxury for 3rd party candidates. The only way to get a 3rd party president is to elect 3rd party congressmen because without support from congress, a 3rd party president doesn't have much of a chance of bringing any change.

I agree with stradric. The national elections, especially presidential, are 2 party (except for a few congressional seats).

I vote Green Party in State and Local electons and Dem in Federal. I think the lesser known parties need to gain some experience/cred. before the general public will all one in the oval office.

This is a great article to help me figure out my position and opinions about the presidential candidates.

Although alternative energy is important, what is going to happen when americans finally realize that we cannot continue to live our lives the way we have been the past century? Suburbs and globalization are not sustainable ways of life, and I think our governement should be concerned with how we trasition from living globally to living locally again.

@jafoca
McCain's life time LCV rating is 24%. That means he votes against environmental legislation 3 out of 4 times. In the 110th congress, his Republican compatriots ranged from 0% to 33%, excepting moderate Maine Republican Susan Collins, averaging 20%. McCain's record during the same congress? 0%. Zero.

I know this won't be popular, but in a "free" market like we live in, the most logical way to make renewables viable is to tax the crap out of non-renewables. I hate paying at the pump as much as the next guy, but when you look at it, the only way to get people to conserve is to either scare them into it (global warming). Or we can make them value their energy more. Don't hate me for saying this, I know it might not be a viable option because our society has evolved into needing high amounts of energy and in order to be fair it needs to be affordable to everyone. We seem to have backed ourselves into a corner here... Of coarse, no politician will get elected if they raise energy taxes, but where else will/should the $150,000,000,000 come from?

Whilst both candidates on the face of it seem to support renewable energy, they both seem confused and unsure when it comes to concrete policy. Virgil reckons that McCain "has a plan for both the short-term and long-term" well why then offer federal support for nuclear but not renewable energy ?-surely this is putting green, clean energy to the back of the line rather than at the front where it should be?