There are a few excellent websites that provide the views of the major presidential candidates on the subject of the environment and climate change. Read this for a summary of the information from the best site for an informed comparison and the answer to which are not the most eco-friendly.
The candidates included on the website are Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Gary Johnson, John Kasich, and Jill Stein, rated in that order by Facebook likes. There are all kinds of details about these candidates including their experience, philosophy, personal facts, websites and Facebook pages.
Click on any candidate for views on the issues of individual rights, domestic issues, economic issues, and defense and international issues which are then divided into topics. Under domestic issues, “prioritize green energy” is the climate-related one, broken down into Cap-&-trade imposes costs with no environmental improvement; Collaborative, incentive driven, locally-based solutions; Create block grants for Agricultural Stewardship; and Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries. Under individual rights, the “environment” tab is the eco-friendly topic questioning whether EPA regulations are too restrictive.
Sanders strongly agrees with prioritizing green energy and supports it with 23 views such as being against authorizing new oil refineries, in favor of immediately raising carbon taxes and CAFE standards, federally funding research into sustainable energy resources and pushing the Kyoto Protocol and moving away from fossil fuels, and with no negative positions.
He strongly disagrees that EPA regulations are too restrictive: make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements; NO on deauthorizing “critical habitat” for endangered species; NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land; prohibit invasive research on great apes; prohibits breeding or possessing Big Cat species; prohibits commercial logging on Federal public lands; promote conservation of rare felids and canids; rated 90% by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) political voice of the national environmental movement which indicates pro-environment votes; regulate all dog breeders down to kennels of 50 dogs; require labeling genetically engineered food; strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting; YES on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.
Clinton strongly agrees with prioritizing green energy and agrees with Sanders on his views listed above about that subject. She supports 23 positions which prioritize green energy such as $100B per year by 2020 for climate change mitigation, that Chinese participation is essential to climate change, that we should designate Alaska’s sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness and establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, and only one negative position with the gas tax holiday for the summer.
She strongly disagrees that EPA regulations are too restrictive: $5B for green-collar jobs in an economic stimulus package; EPA must do better on mercury clean-up; grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act; was rated 89 percent by the LCV; removed PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles; scored 100 percent on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection; strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting; voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain.
Trump strongly disagrees with prioritizing green energy and all four of his listed views oppose it: climate change is a hoax, it’s incredible how slowly we are drilling for oil, maybe some climate change is manmade but not all, and no cap-and-trade: oil is this country’s lifeblood. He does favor raising carbon taxes and CAFE standards, federally funding research into alternative and sustainable energy resources, and pushing to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
He strongly agrees that EPA regulations are too restrictive: cut budgets of defense, entire EPA and Department of Education; cut the EPA, what they do is a disgrace; get rid of the regulations that are just destroying us; good development enhances the environment. He won’t go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights.
Cruz strongly disagrees with prioritizing green energy and has 5 views opposing it: cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures, explore proven energy reserves and keep energy prices low, fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration, let states lease energy rights on federal lands, and he signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. He does support the view that because overuse of fossil fuels causes serious problems we should deal with it immediately by raising carbon taxes, raising CAFE standards, federally funding research into alternative and sustainable energy resources, and pushing to implement the Kyoto Protocol. On EPA regulations, he is listed as favoring less environmental regulation with his voting NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems.
Kasich disagrees with prioritizing green energy holding 3 positions supporting it and 3 opposing it. Opposing it are NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol, balanced use of green energy and low-cost energy, and devolving enviro policy-making to State and community. Favoring green energy are his positions that environment and economy are not at odds, to manage the environment to bequest it to future, and to raise severance tax on oil and gas from 20 cents upward.
He is considered neutral on EPA regulations: freeze all federal regulations for one year, strengthen the Clean Water Act; increase federal grazing fees; we should not worship environment like pantheists.
Stein, Green Party candidate, not surprisingly strongly agrees with prioritizing green energy and has 9 views that support it: completely zero out climate emissions, as fast as possible; fight against climate change instead of fighting for oil; immediate halt in all new fossil fuel exploration, make wars for oil obsolete; 100 percent renewables by 2030; nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive; sustainable development and ban genetically modified food; sustainable transportation plus sustainable food supply; we can’t wait 4 more years to address climate change; and World War II-scale mobilization to reduce carbon burden.
She is not for less environmental regulation under individual rights: $200M for 50,000 green jobs, address both supply demand; current food subsidies drive system towards FrankenFood; environment and economy are interdependent, not at odds; Green Transition Program: convert gray economy to green; Healthy People, Healthy Planet link environment and health; renewable energy is win-win for economy and national security; and weatherizing homes creates jobs and addresses climate change.
Johnson strongly opposes green energy with views that: cap-&-trade imposes costs with no environmental improvement; Kyoto Treaty must include reductions by all countries; no cap-and-trade, no taxing carbon emissions. He takes a neutral stance with views of collaborative, incentive driven, locally-based solutions; create block grants for Agricultural Stewardship; and voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.
He agrees EPA regulations are too restrictive: wants more state autonomy on brownfields and Superfund cleanups;oversaw construction of 500 miles of new highway; state primacy over water quantity and quality issues. His focus on prevention and states for Endangered Species strongly opposes less environmental regulation.
On The Issues contains environment related quotes by many people, including presidential candidates: 24 by Bernie Sanders, 23 by Hillary Clinton, 17 by Jeb Bush, 12 by Jill Stein, 9 by Marco Rubio, 7 by Gary Johnson, 4 by Donald Trump, 4 by John Kasich, 2 by Ted Cruz, and 2 by Ben Carson. There are 37 full quotes by Barack Obama for what the current president has said about the environment and plenty of other quotes by the candidates on other issues.
New England Cable News sought answers from candidates about their positions on the issues of education, gun policy, social issues, healthcare, taxes, foreign policy, economy, climate, police and race relations, and immigration. Official campaign websites were used for the unresponsive campaigns. Included are Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump. Select a candidate and it tells about that person and their stand on each issue. Select two candidates to compare their answers at the same time.
Direct links to environmental actions include Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The 2016 presidential candidates org website does not include any issues about the environment or climate change which apparently were not considered as important as the ones detailed: Abortion, Afghanistan, Business and Labor, Capital Punishment, Civil Liberties, Cuba, Deficit and Debt, Education, Federal Budget, Guantanamo Bay, Gun Control, Health Care, Immigration, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jobs, LGBT Issues, Minimum Wage, National Security, North Korea, Poverty, Religion, Russia, Social Security, Syria, Taxes, and Terrorism. Read all the candidates’ positions on those topics there.
The bottom line is that Trump, Cruz, Johnson, and Kasich are NOT the most eco-friendly candidates. Watch the video where presidential historian Professor Douglas Brinkley gives Trump who is selling the American public the idea that there is “gold in them there hills” a zero on environmental issues.