Obama, McCain, Clinton: who is the greenest of them all?

International news and exclusives

LEFT TO RIGHT: GERALD HERBERT/PA/AP JOHN GRESS/REUTERS EZIO PETERSON/UPI/EYEVINE

This Thisweek– week–

Who’s the greenest of them all? If the election rested on green credentials alone, the identity of the next US president might surprise you MICHAEL REILLY

CLIMATE change is the biggest science issue in the world, and the biggest science issue in the upcoming US election. Who is the front runner? If you look at the parties, it’s a no-brainer: the Democrats snatched control of both houses of Congress in 2006, and have so far made good on their promises to fight climate change. The Republicans under George W. Bush have a lousy record. Nonetheless, the stakes couldn’t be higher for the next president to commit to combating global warming. For one thing, the country still doesn’t have a federal mandate to cap carbon emissions. Among the three leading candidates, you might assume that one of the Democrats – either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, 8 | NewScientist | 1 March 2008

is the most environmentally friendly. Both senators have made big promises to cuts emissions and fund clean energy research. Republican front runner John McCain has a set of climate credentials that arguably eclipses them both. He has railed against inaction on the issue since long before it was fashionable to do so. Now that he’s the presumptive conservative nominee, however, there are signs that the Arizona senator will backtrack. There is also an independent candidate, Ralph Nader, who supports a carbon tax – a fee charged for every tonne of carbon emitted – rather than a cap-and-trade system. That stance is widely considered politically untenable, and Nader got less than 0.4 per cent of the vote in 2004. So of the three main candidates, who is the greenest? On the Democratic side, both Clinton and Obama are bolstered

by their party’s record. Last December the Democrats pushed through the Energy Independence and Security Act, requiring all cars in the US to run for at least 35 miles on every gallon of gasoline by 2020. Several bills are also circulating that call for emissions cuts as deep as 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. If elected president, both candidates say they will work to make one of these bills law. Whether any of those plans will actually work remains to be seen, says John Holdren, chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Eighty per cent by 2050 is almost a theological argument. No one can know what the world will be like in 42 years,” he says. “The important thing is that we get on a track to make deep cuts in emissions down the road.” To do that, Holdren and other climate experts agree that by itself a cap-and-trade system is not enough. Large funding increases for clean energy research and development are needed, as are improvements to

“John McCain has a set of climate credentials that arguably eclipse both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton”

energy efficiency across the board. Clinton and Obama have each promised to invest $150 billion over 10 years to commercialise clean energy technologies, and to double basic science research into clean energy and efficiency measures. Both claim they will ensure at least 25 per cent of US energy comes from renewable sources by 2025, and both have promised to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars. Both support legislation that would sanction auctioning the full allotment of carbon credits to greenhouse gas emitters. That would maximise funds that could then be used to develop clean energy technologies. However, the candidates do have subtle differences in their senate records, with Clinton edging ahead. For instance, last year Obama raised concerns among environmentalists when he co-sponsored a bill that would promote the development of coalto-liquid fuel technologies – essentially turning coal into a source of diesel fuel. Clinton, on the other hand, introduced the Zero-Emissions Building Act of 2007, which aims to make all new federal buildings carbon-neutral by 2030. As the race for the Democratic nomination goes to the wire, the votes of the sciencewww.newscientist.com

In this section ● Was radio burst a cosmic whip-crack, page 10 ● No time to waste on cutting emissions, page 14 ● Teenage tantrums are hard-wired, page 16

www.newscientist.com

SUPERDELEGATES The nomination for the Democratic candidate could go to the wire. If neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton emerges with a clear majority after the Texas and Ohio primaries on 4 March, then the free votes of the “superdelegates” – mostly members of Congress, state governors and Democratic National Committee members – at the Democratic National Convention in August will be decisive. With science issues centre stage, here’s a look at a few of the superdelegates with backgrounds in science who could hold the balance of power. AL GORE The former vice-president retains his superdelegate vote thanks to his position as “Distinguished Party Leader”. On climate change Gore needs no introduction – he can let the Nobel prize which he shared with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do that for him. His documentary An Inconvenient Truth and accompanying Academy award don’t hurt either. Gore hasn’t announced which candidate he will endorse but his time spent as Bill Clinton’s understudy may affect how he votes. JOHN OLVER (MA) From the old school of climate change legislation, the member of the House of Representatives has a PhD in chemistry. In 2003 he co-sponsored the House’s version of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which if passed would have implemented a nationwide Will Al Gore vote for Hillary Clinton for old time’s sake?

cap-and-trade programme. It didn’t, but a newer version of the bill is back this year, proposing greenhouse gas emissions cuts of 70 per cent by 2050. RUSH HOLT (NJ) Holt’s PhD in physics has prepared him well to speak on science issues as a member of the House of Representatives. He even holds a patent for improving solar energy generation. Last year, he voted in favour of amendments to the Energy Independence and Security Act that would extend tax credits for renewable energy generation and require 15 per cent of the country’s energy to be renewable by 2020. They were defeated – but hey, he tried. BART GORDON (TN) Though not a scientist, Gordon chairs the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology. Unlike Holt, he voted against the amendment which would have required 15 per cent of US energy to come from renewables by 2020. However, he recently introduced a bill to better incorporate biofuels into the petroleum fuelling infrastructure. GERALD MCNERNEY (CA) With a PhD in maths, McNerney used to be an engineer with US Windpower, an alternative energy company. He is serving his first term as a member of the House of Representatives, and is CEO of a company that builds wind power turbines. Along with Gordon, Holt and Olver, he has signed a statement in support of Science Debate 2008 – a proposed debate between presidential candidates next month that would focus on science and technology. KOJI SASAHARA/PA/AP

greenhouse gas emissions to 60 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. Some of the bills now in Congress are tougher, but McCain’s history of pioneering advocacy for regulations is undeniable. The question is whether his stance has weakened. In December, he was the only senator absent for a crucial vote on the Energy Independence and Security Act. At stake was an amendment that would require the US to get 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The bill failed by one vote and the amendment was stripped out of the version that ultimately passed into law. McCain’s message on the campaign trail has also weakened. “Now he’s using words very –We’ll get the US on the right track– carefully and qualifying his statements. It suggests to me he’s trying to open up some flexibility savvy superdelegates could be on climate change,” says Neal vital (see “Superdelegates”). Lane, former director of the White Of the three then, who is best House Office of Science and placed to implement an aggressive policy to curtail global Technology Policy. However, McCain is unlikely to beat a full warming? The surprising answer retreat to the old Republican line, may be McCain. says Sherwood Boehlert, a Clinton and Obama’s big Republican and former chair of promises could bring other large emitters like China and India into line behind the US. That’s “Clinton and Obama’s big important, especially as world promises could bring other large leaders look to a new climate emitters like China and India policy after the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. But McCain is the into line behind the US” only candidate battle-hardened the House of Representatives by years of defending his climate science committee. change bills on the Senate floor. In short then, McCain has the As early as 2000 he refused to greenest credentials; the toe the party line, calling climate Democrats the greenest promises. change “a very serious business”. And any will be greener than the In 2003 he and Senator Joseph current president. “Any of the Lieberman of Connecticut three candidates would embrace sponsored the first iteration of serious climate change the Climate Stewardship Act, legislation,” says Holdren. which would have limited US If he’s right, a major climate emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. bill – likely the Lieberman-Warner It was defeated, but McCain’s bill that passed through the revisions kept surfacing in the Senate in December – could be Senate, complete with more signed into law in early 2009. Just stringent emissions targets. as important will be the next Last year he reintroduced the president’s role in maintaining a bill as the Climate Stewardship long-term commitment, says and Innovation Act of 2007. It Holdren. “Whoever it is, he or she calls for a nationwide cap-andwill have a great opportunity – trade system as well as funding and responsibility – to get us on for clean technology that would the right track.” ● allow the country to cut

1 March 2008 | NewScientist | 9