Green With Apathy

Time magazine has an interesting chart of where the presidential candidates stand on environmental issues (PDF link). On the Dem side, the chart highlights some wonky differences between the candidates, but comparing the GOP candidates positions on environmental issues is a little more difficult. For example, here’s where Giuliani fares in the “Energy Efficiency” column :

Broadly approves of alternative-energy sources and improved efficiency, but has no specific proposals

Contrast that with the energy efficiency stance for McCain…

Generally supports increased energy efficiency but has not announced specific targets

…and Romney.

Generally supports improved efficiency but does not address the issue regularly and offers no targets

Why even give candidates the benefit of the doubt on this? If environmental issues are important enough to chart like this (they are), then why use words like “generally supports” to describe insincere lip-service? Time is really doing a disservice to their readers who care about “The Eco Vote” by not pointing out that this “general” vagueness shows that environmental issues aren’t as important to Republicans as Democrats.


posted by greg on November 7, 2007 @ 3:44 pm

2 comments »

  1. What would be the alternative to “generally supporting” environmental issues? “Hates the environment and seeks to hurl the earth into the sun.”

    Comment by Raznor — November 8, 2007 @ 12:27 am

  2. You are chicken shit for not allowing people who support Mr Novak to make comments that support him, by closing the comment line? you — little commie pinko. And another thing Ted Kennedy killed Mary Jo Kapekne and was at his house when that girl was raped. How many blacks live in Ted Kennedy’s neighborhood, in regard to calling Robert Bork a racist. You say that America should pay for cleaning up the atmosphere for causing global warming and totally let the nations who are way worse polluters than our country totally off the hook.There were over 30 people who knew about Bill Clinton and Hillary Clintons shady dealing and they are all dead. / Why are you not angered about what Dan Rather did by lying about President Bush?r. Why would he risk his career? Because the lefty commie presses would protect his size 12 asshole( which he got from the Barney Franks he loves so much). And another thing? why are
    you not upset that the liberal hollywood producers and directors want to make our present president killed (not assassinated)? I have seen the Starkes and the Jesse Jacksons and the Hell Sharptons say traitorous remarks about our country where if they said those things during WW2 would landed them in jail. Y are you not upset with POLITICAL CORRECTNESS( a term used in the Marxist communist manifesto) which jams communism down our throats. I suggest that you read the book : None Dare Call it Treason,because bub you are 1. Oh and another thing someone on the Internet made fun of Hillary Clinton and said ugly things ( which commies in th press do all the time) about her and the FBI and all of the lefties in our govt. and state departments went searching for that blogger?

    Comment by briane lawson — November 9, 2007 @ 9:59 am

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)