As the Democratic election chugs along, it provides observers the opportunity to learn as much as possible about each candidate. In fact, by the time this thing is over, we'll know more than we want about Obama & Clinton (i.e. that Obama looks good in his underwear).

The most important thing to glean from all of this information is what type of President these candidates would be if they were elected. My concern is what environmental policies the future President would support.

Barack Obama & Hillary are not far apart on almost all of their plans. Both support cap & trade emissions programs, 80% renewable energy by 2050, investing in renewable energy development, etc. There are some differences, however, in the way they have voted in the past and the loyalties they have formed.

You probably know by now that Barack Obama supported the 2005 Energy Bill written by Dick Cheney and his big oil lobbyist friends. Hillary & McCain didn't. What you probably do not know is that Obama has also co-sponsored a bill that creates federal loan guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies for expansion of coal power plants.

The bill was originally created to encourage development of "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel," which is supposed to be a cleaner way of getting energy from coal. The Argonne National Laboratory, which is run by the Department of Energy, says that turning coal into liquid fuel yields 125% more carbon dioxide than producing diesel fuel and 66% more than gasoline. In other words, this method of burning coal is still pathetically bad for our environment. The only incentive in this bill to move to "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel" was more tax breaks and no mandates, leaving the coal companies to pollute unrestricted.

Why would Obama co-sponsor a bill that gives money to increased coal plant development without demanding lower greenhouse gas emissions? Some of it has to do with the fact that Illinois is a large coal producing state. He has also supported the use of ethanol, a "wannabe" green energy source, because of Illinois' powerful agricultural lobby.

After the environmental community and MoveOn.org attacked Obama for co-sponsoring the pro-coal bill, he backed off with this statement..."Senator Obama supports ... investing in technology that could make coal a clean-burning source of energy. However, unless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels."

Barack Obama is also a big supporter of nuclear energy. He believes that nuclear energy should be a part of America's "energy portfolio" because it does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear energy creates waste that must be stored in a safe place for many many generations. Obama has received thousands in campaign contributions from the Illinois nuclear power company Exelon. In addition, David Axelrod, Obama's Campaign Manager, has served as a consultant to Exelon in the past.

My hope is that President Obama would be the change agent he promises to be on the issue of renewable energy. Relying on dirty 18th century energy technology just because it can be made slightly cleaner is not the right direction for America. Furthermore, relying on a source of energy that creates extremely dangerous and everlasting waste should not be an option. Our next President must treat renewable energy sources like legitimate options, not side projects or novelties.

Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who is paying for carbon offsets. Sign the petition to tell McCain and Obama to do the same.

WWW.GREENPIECEBLOG.COM