Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Who was the greenest President? A recent survey of green groups aimed to find out which presidents had the most environmentally friendly policies.
The top two spots, naturally, went to Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. Roosevelt dominated the survey for his championing of the nascent idea of conservation more than a century ago. Nixon garnered support for his passage of landmark legislation like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts as well as the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Rounding out the top three was Jimmy Carter, who gained points for actions like putting solar panels on the White House.
Who came in fourth? Barack Obama, thanks to often overlooked steps like raising car fuel efficiency standards and making alternative energy projects a big part of the federal stimulus package.
Of course, the modern Republican party, including candidate Mitt Romney, has turned against conservation. If Romney likes coal, then he must love air pollution and global warming. The original Republican president, Lincoln, may have created the first national park, but his heirs today are more interested in opening such public lands for fossil fuel exploitation.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentThis article is nothing but a thinly-veiled political statement, and an endorsement for Barack Obama. Scientific American should hold itself high above this behaviour, and quit trying to influence the popular vote. Shame upon you------
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're going to allow crap like that you should remove "Scientific" from your name. Your editors should be red faced, I don't care if it was a Podcast. I can tolerate your mag's left lean but that was just ridiculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy were the Vice Presidents left out? It would have been good to see where VP Al Gore scored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve me, Al Gore certainly "scored" $millions on the environment. He observed that everyone experiences weather, and occasionally complains about it. He also realized that people generally don't remember what the weather was like last year, let alone last decade. In the old days, people would talk about "dry/wet spells", "cold winters", "Indian summer", "stormy years", etc. etc. Now, Gore, etal, and a complicit and vocal scientific cabal have figure that if they can convince the public that everything can be blamed on something that can be associated with a particular political party and/or industry (republicans, big oil, fossil fuels in general, throw some ugly sounding words in for emphasis ("fracking") and some kind and gentle sounding words (sustainable, "GREEN", renewable, clean energy, etc.) then they can reap political gain from it by convincing a majority that, in this case, the Republican party wants to kill the planet. Brilliant political science, but hokum "science" science. There is plenty of dissension that does not get the same press as Gore, McKibben, etc. etc, ad nauseum. Did you ever ask yourself why the question is always stated, "Do you BELIEVE in man-made global warming?" The answer to that question should always be, "It doesn't matter what I believe, it is either real or it is made up." And there is plenty of ignored evidence out there that it is made up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a person who got my interest in science from, amongst other things, reading SA as a young man, I am discouraged to hear that they would join the political discussion as well. Never expected SA to have an editorial page.