Politics and the Environment

The environment is really not a partisan issue. Or at least it shouldn't be.

You might be surprised that the environmental movement's roots are deeply entwined with the Republican party - and not the way you may think.

Republican Teddy Roosevelt was a dedicated conservationist who is well known for signing the creation of 5 national parks into law. (He also attacked big business and was in favor of national, universal health care. Hmmmm...) And Congress first passed the Clean Air Act in 1955, and a major revision with much tougher standards in 1970 under Republican presidents - Eisenhower and Nixon, respectively.

So when a certain Republican contender for President spouts off about his "longstanding commitment to conserving America's natural resources and promoting environmental stewardship," and claims to be following in the footsteps of Theodore Roosevelt, it can sound pretty convincing.

But we owe it to ourselves to ferret out the truth when it comes to voting our beliefs. And to put it bluntly, the "straight talk" rarely issues from the candidates' mouths.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) rates members of Congress based on how their votes on political affect the environment. Each senator is assigned a percentage ranking indicating how frequently his decisions are pro-environment. 100% means he votes green all the time, 0% means never.

Well, guess what? Mr. McCain, with all his rhetoric about having "an obligation to future generations," has a lifetime score of only 27%. And in 2007? A big, fat ZERO!

Not that Obama is an environmental saint. His 2007 score was 67%. That leaves a lot of room for improvement. But it's a darn sight better than the alternative. And enough to prompt the LCV to endorse him in the race for President.

I know which one I'll be voting for.

And as for McCain? I suggest he learn to re-examine his roots.