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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American