October 2, 2008

Environmental Issues Divide Presidential Contenders

Where do the candidates stand on the environment and energy? David Biello reports

SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Earth

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

The environment. Finally, it's an election issue. But the candidates' energy plans have some big drawbacks. Here they are:

Obama: The senator backs ethanol, maybe because Illinois has a lot of cornfields. But turning corn into fuel means less food to go around.

McCain: The senator from Arizona wants to build at least 45 more nuclear power plants. And the nuclear waste? Bury it in Nevada.

How about the VPs?

Biden: The senator from Delaware is a fan of clean coal, technologies to capture and permanently store pollution. He also wants to give it to China and India, too. Too bad we don't know if it works.

Palin: Drill, baby, drill, according to Alaska's Governor… from off the coast of Florida to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Caribou and corals be damned, we need oil!

That said, all the candidates except for maybe Palin believe global warming is man-made. And a problem. And all support renewable technologies, such as solar and wind power, that could cut carbon dioxide. That ought to be good for the planet, no matter whom you vote for.

—David Biello

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

60-Second Earth is a weekly podcast from Scientific American. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American