Greenpeace rating of our candidates' environmental platforms

[JudyM]

...
Turns out, Castro might want to pick a different issue if he wants to stand out from the rest of the 2020 climate hawks. He scored a “D+,” while Inslee, who has a long history of championing environmental legislation, nabbed the highest score with an “A-.” Senators Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders ranked close behind Inslee with a “B+” each. According to Greenpeace, Castro neglected to set a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target, concoct a plan to manage the phase-out of fossil fuels, or enact policies to fight environmental racism.

As a result, Castro garnered a measly 25 points out of the available 100. He’s still ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan, though. Those three got a “D-” apiece.


...
In order to determine how to score each candidate, Greenpeace sent around a 29-question survey that centered on two major themes, each worth 50 points: Will the candidate end the era of fossil fuels, and will they champion a Green New Deal?

It wasn’t a simple yes or no test; the survey asked for concrete targets for phasing out greenhouse gases, left blank spaces for candidates to write in specific policies, and even asked how candidates would go about setting up their cabinets. Greenpeace also examined each contenders climate and environment record — what policies they supported while in office, whether they took the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, and the planks of their climate platforms (if applicable). The group says it intends to update the scorecard as candidates adjust or add new elements to their platforms.

https://grist.org/article/the-presidential-candidates-just-received-their-climate-report-cards/

[Andy823]

1. Very interesting

Now I see why so many don't want their candidates to be in a debated about climate change!

[mtnsnake]

2. Biden with the second worst score. D-

That is horrible.

[JI7]

3. this isn't reliable. it was posted before

[mtnsnake]

5. What is reliable is that Biden has the lowest League of Conservation Voters environmental scorecard

of all the 2020 Democratic candidates. Most Democrats are in the mid to high 90's, but Biden's is an abysmal 83%.
https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden

[Drunken Irishman]

6. 'Abysmal 83%'...

You want abysmal for a Democrat?

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-manchin-iii

Hell, Obama had a worst-overall rating than Joe!

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/barack-obama

[Honeycombe8]

9. Obama....

Looks like Obama's score is so bad because he missed a bunch of Senate votes the campaign year 2008. Before then, he voted for all the environmental bills in the Senate, except one.

Looks like Biden missed some votes, too. He generally voted for environmental bills.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. I think Biden's score is probably more indicative of the landscape...

I definitely don't see it as a point to shame him when there's far worse voting records.

[mtnsnake]

22. Biden's LCV scorecard is definitely abysmal when compared to any other 2020 Democratic candidate

Even when compared to almost every other Democrat who was scored by the LCV, Biden's LCV scorecard is abysmal, so your singling out an exception like Joe Machin holds no water. Plus, a Manchin comparison is ridiculous when last anyone knew, Manchin is running for President in 2020.

BTW, since you brought up Obama in negative environmental fashion, his environmental legacy as President was outstanding, so putting him in the same category as Joe Manchin, environmentally, is ridiculous, but nice try at trying to get Biden off the hook by running down Obama when Obama's environmental accomplishments are head and shoulders above anything Biden ever accomplished.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. No it's not.

The difference between Biden's 82% and Bernie Sanders' 92% score could literally be the difference of just a few votes.

What a silly comparison.

Moreover, you're comparing a record of a man who's been out of office now for over a decade with current members of congress. It's just not a good comparison.

Beyond that, I pointed to Obama to showcase how disingenuous your post really was - but thanks for reinforcing my point that the score doesn't mean much in terms of how they'll spend the next eight years advocating for the environment as president. Glad you see that, too.

[mtnsnake]

26. There is nothing you can say or do

to change the fact that Biden's 83% LCV environmental score is at the very bottom of LCV scores of any other 2020 Democratic candidate.

There is also nothing more disingenuous than bringing up someone like Manchin or Obama to compare it to when neither of them are one of the 2020 candidates. Talk about silly comparisons....

[Drunken Irishman]

29. I brought it up because both were in the senate together.

Just because it undercuts your point that Biden must be awful because his lifetime score is a strong 83%, which is better than Obama's, who you openly admit was a great president on environmental issues, doesn't make it silly. Nice try, tho.

[mtnsnake]

31. Whatever

Nice try on your part, too.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. I mean, it's a valid comparison, no?

Context matters.

Here's Kerry's:

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/john-kerry

Not far off from Biden's.

Here's Ted Kennedy's:

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/edward-m-kennedy

Technically worse than Biden's.

These politicians would be more comparable to Biden since they were in the senate during his time in the senate - which means they voted on the same bills and had a same universal make up.

The only comparable candidate currently in that regard is Bernie Sanders and, well, he's not in the mid-to-high 90s - he's in the low 90s.

[mtnsnake]

37. I'm fine with saying it's valid.

Having said that, in terms of Democratic standards when it comes to LCV scores, there is a world of difference between Biden's 83% score and Kerry's 91% score. Biden's and Ted Kennedy's LCV scores are at low end of the spectrum. 83% is nothing to brag about if you're a Democrat, considering that the average score for Democrats just for 2018 alone was 95%.

Anyway, yes, your comparison is valid.

[Drunken Irishman]

39. I don't think I'd brag about it but I trust Biden on the environment.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Seems reliable to me. Better than League of Conservation Voters.

The LCV is based on Congressional Record. Can't compare the candidates because some of them have no Congressional Record, and Biden's is so long, compared to others.

Greenpeace, OTOH, is going by their current stances, all being judged on the same categories.

But I think it's safe to say that they are all generally pro-environment. It is alarming that Biden scored so low, though. It could be his campaign isn't focusing on that yet, so hasn't firmed up his stances.

It also rates according to support for the Green New Deal, which I, a very strong pro-environmentalist, think is extreme and unrealistic. Or at least what I know about it.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. This seems to score just two environmental positions - Fossil Fuels and the Green Deal.

[PatrickforO]

14. I'm not trying to call you out, but I must disagree.

As advanced by AOC, the Green New Deal was a non binding resolution. The world is close, too close, to going down an irreversible path toward uninhabitability, and yet our people in the Senate were afraid to vote yes, because McConnell was there saying that a yes vote is a vote against American jobs, AND THEY LET HIM COW THEM. They all voted present and honestly that still very much sticks in my craw.

Yeah, I know about the politics, but we have to get control of the talking points. Because you know what? McConnell made a minor change to his disgusting, shitty, don't-care-about-anything-but-money and profits, treasonous utterances. He now says, "A 'present' vote is a vote against American jobs."

That is despicable.

And the reason, in my opinion, that this is 'unrealistic' is simply because the greed heads have been successful throwing money into pseudo-scientific studies designed to cast just a bit of doubt to buy big oil time for a few more years of high shareholder profits. It's ALWAYS about fucking money, but I've got grandchildren. They need the Green New Deal NOW, or at least some plan that aggressively (not 'politic' but AGGRESSIVE) works to mitigate our march toward fucking extinction.

Sorry for the F-bomb, and it's not you that upset me. It's this whole 'unrealistic' thing. We're 11 years at this point from going down an irreversible path to this planet becoming a smoking cinder. See, one of the things that I just love about AOC is that she made a video for what is considered on here to be a subversive organization in terms of the Democratic party, and on this video she said, "If you only get to serve one term, so what!" Basically saying that if you are elected, you are obligated to do the right thing even if it means you become unpopular and (gasp!) lose the next election.

That is what it means to put the welfare of the American people over party. Not that our people aren't doing that, but sometimes it seems very frustrating to me - a Catch-22 - where if we do the RIGHT thing, then the Republicans win because they are SO VERY MUCH more disciplined than we are around talking points. And if we equivocate out of a desire that this not happen, we STILL play into the hands of their corporate masters, who are playing a delaying game even now. Just another year of high profits surely won't hurt. Two years. Three years. Ten years...

Almost enough to make you want to weep, but we cannot give up. It is darkest before the dawn and we can win for the sake of our children and grandchildren, for the sake of all the species of the earth.

[left-of-center2012]

4. Greenpeace is pretty much a 'one issue' group

You're either with them or they're against you.

[Honeycombe8]

7. Makes sense, if someone is concerned about the environment.

You're either w/the environment, or you're not. Unless you're "meh...in the middle somewhere."

[JI7]

8. sometimes people are more about just bringing attention to themselves than actually getting

change and progress

like below . reminds me of the crap PETA pulls

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/10/peru-press-charges-greenpeace-nazca-lines-stunt

[Honeycombe8]

11. Yeah, that was insane.

But I wouldn't hold it against the entire organization. There are also few things I disagree with PETA about. You're talking about cruelty to animals.

Activists overstep the line sometimes. All activists do that, unfortunately. They're single minded and have a goal of getting in the news.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

27. Isn't that how most activist organizations work?

I don't think that's a bad thing. Or are you saying an organization focused on the environment is not a good place to get a rating of candidates? Perhaps we should get our environmental rating of candidates from Exxon?

[LanternWaste]

35. Much as NARAL and the NAAACP.

Certainly not the damning indictment you may have hoped for; and though hopes are a wonderful side-show for sacred cows, not so much effective legislation.

[left-of-center2012]

38. "not the damning indictment you may have hoped for"

I always get a chuckle out of people who think they know my thoughts, or intentions when reading my posts.
A lot of that in DU.

"I love vanilla ice cream."
"What you mean is you hate strawberry ice cream."

"I love the color yellow."
"What you mean is you hate burgundy."

[LibFarmer]

15. THis was a made-up chart with foofoo attributes for scoring

and it was first released by the Sanders campaign.

It has been thoroughly discredited already.

[caraher]

16. Discredited by whom?

Grist credits the chart to Greenpeace, and the information on the Greenpeace site seems to jibe with what's in the chart.

You seemed to suggest this was something the Sanders campaign produced to mislead. From the evidence I can readily obtain, the attribution to Greenpeace seems wholly accurate.

Or by "discredited" do you simply mean Greenpeace's methodology for rating the candidates is suspect?

[caraher]

17. Here's Greenpeace's methodology page BTW

Follow the link in the excerpt:

We scored candidates based on their responses to a Greenpeace USA survey and their public records, then assigned each a letter grade. Scores will be updated as candidates’ positions change. Among Democrats, we only included Democratic candidates who have crossed the DNC debate threshold. Check out our detailed methodology here.

What matters most is how each candidate would:

Say #NoToFossilFuels by halting oil, gas, and coal expansion, phase out existing fossil fuel infrastructure, and center fossil fuel workers and climate-impacted communities in the transition to a renewable energy economy.

Champion a Green New Deal by mobilizing our economy toward 100% renewable energy for all, creating millions of family-sustaining jobs, and securing a better future for communities that have borne the brunt of fossil fuel industry exploitation.

[ucrdem]

18. " based on their responses to a Greenpeace USA survey"

They sent a questionnaire and then "graded" it based on whether their favorite twitter hashtags and 23-character internet memes were checked.

[JudyM]

21. If you have evidence for that assertion, please link it here.

That is certainly not mentioned in the methodology description so if it’s true please share it.

[ucrdem]

23. It's in the very excerpt you posted.

Did you read it?

[JudyM]

24. Um yes. Greenpeace analyzed their plans, past actions and public statements in detail.

Nothing about that suggests superficial attention to hashtag usage.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

28. You mad, bro?

Please give a detailed reason why Biden deserves more than a D.

[Raine]

19. THANKS for posting

this, the environment is my number one issue and I will be making my choice by how they stand on this issue.

[pnwmom]

20. Both Warren and Biden came out with detailed plans last week. I'd like to know how their current

plans would fit with this survey. I suspect it was developed based on outdated information.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

30. Well, you could look at Sanders' score for Biden's potential new score.

[still_one]

32. Andrew Yang has a D+ tells me Green Peace has another agenda going on here. I will take the Leauge

of Conservation of VOters, and where he has been on this when he was in Congress.

1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)


1970s: Push to prohibit refineries, to protect state beaches. (Oct 2010)
America should guarantee Katrina reconstruction. (Jun 2007)
Take away the billions of subsidy to the oil companies. (Jun 2007)
Scored 80% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Rated 95% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden


Green Peace's evaluation is flawed, and so is their grading system

I sense another agenda other then the environment.

[comradebillyboy]

34. It's been a long time since I took Greenpeace seriously.

This 'report card' does nothing to change my mind.

[Irishxs]

36. I think anyone in the B range would be great. Potatohead gets a zero.