by Michael J. Crosbie, PhD, AIA

How do you . . . educate yourself on environmental issues before going to the polls?

Summary: How do the presidential candidates compare on such issues as global warming, energy conservation, and sustainable architecture? A lot has been said on the campaign trail, but the best source for a candidate’s position on these issues is the candidate’s Web site. This is what I found:

McCain’s position
The centerpiece of John McCain’s response to global warming and climate change is a “cap and trade” system that, the Republican ticket believes, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while encouraging the development of low-cost compliance options. McCain’s Web site explains that a climate cap-and-trade mechanism “would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.”

The McCain campaign believes that the best approach is to let the market stimulate innovation and conservation. McCain’s Web site explains that under the cap-and-trade system, market participants would be allotted “total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists around the common goal of reducing emissions.”

To address growing energy demands, the McCain ticket supports a number of approaches. First is to expand domestic oil exploration. “The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf obstructs energy exploration and production,” notes the McCain Web site. McCain also supports alternatives to oil such as developing “clean coal technologies, constructing new nuclear power plants, and encouraging the market for alternative, low-carbon fuels such as wind, hydro, and solar power.” The McCain campaign’s goal is energy independence by 2025.

There is nothing specific on the McCain Web site pertaining to energy conservation in buildings or sustainable architecture.

Obama’s position
Barack Obama’s campaign Web site notes that the candidate intends to “make combating global warming a top priority.” Obama claims that he will “reinvigorate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), respecting its professionalism and scientific integrity.”

Like McCain, Obama supports a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, but he also sets a target of 80 percent below 1990 emission levels by 2050. In the near term, the Web site notes, Obama would “start reducing emissions immediately in his administration by establishing strong annual reduction targets.” Obama wants to implement a mandate of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Obama plans to invest $150 billion over 10 years in advanced energy technologies, doubling federal science and research funding for clean energy projects. Obama would require 25 percent of electricity generation to come from clean, sustainable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal by 2025.

The Obama campaign offers specific goals for making buildings more energy efficient and green. It calls for making “all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030.” Obama also wants to set “a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade.”

Obama plans to “expand federal grant programs to help states and localities build more efficient public buildings that adopt aggressive green building provisions like those provided by Green Globes and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program of the U.S. Green Buildings Council.” The Obama campaign’s statement on environmental policy supports “smart growth” and public transportation, as well as a “Green Jobs Corps” program to train disadvantaged youth to improve energy conservation and efficiency retrofit buildings for energy efficiency. The Web site also notes an Obama administration “will fight to clean brownfields, restore abandoned industrial riverfront sites, and give communities the tools they need to…expand livable, walkable neighborhoods.”

The Obama campaign cites the health benefits of good design. “How a community is designed – including the layout of its roads, buildings, and parks – has a huge impact on the health of its residents,” notes the Obama statement on environmental issues. “For instance, nearly one-third of Americans live in neighborhoods without sidewalks and less than half of our country’s children have a playground within walking distance of their homes. This lack of a safe place to walk and play is a major contributor to the growing numbers of overweight children.” Obama introduced the “Healthy Places Act” to help local governments assess the health impact of new policies and projects, like highways or shopping centers.

So there you have it—the candidates’ similar and contrasting approaches to climate change, energy conservation, and sustainable building. Who’s greener? You decide, then make sure to vote for the candidate of your choice on November 4.