If you hurry, you can vote in the Climate Primary (Closes March 8th)

Climate Hawks Votes is running a primary in which you can chose either Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or No Endorsement.

The web page where you can vote is here. You are required to enter some identifying information in order to eliminate or significantly reduced gaming of the poll, so the results should be reasonably fair.

There is a tendency for climate hawks (using the term generally, not in reference to this specific group) to favor Sanders on climate over Clinton, because Clinton is not 100% anti-fracking and anti-methane, while Sanders is. However, I think this is a bit unfair. Sanders has never been in the executive branch, and the Obama White House made its transition from being softer on climate change to stronger on climate change only recently. In fact, the two candidates for the Democratic Nomination are very similar in their stated positions on climate change. (See this post for more discussion on that, and links out to various other sources of information).

Also, though I like both Hillary and Bernie a lot, the truth is that neither of them really qualify as true Climate Hawks, in my opinion. Science has been telling us about the importance of climate change for years. By 1990, the reality and importance of climate change was clear, and should have permeated the political discourse during that decade, but it didn't. Very few politicians can really be considered climate hawks by that standard.

More recently, a small number of politicians, none of whom have the names "Sanders" or "Clinton" have been pushing for implementing policies that will address climate change. They may be considered climate hawks for this reason.

In my view, the real contrast will be between whichever Democrat gets the nomination and, almost certainly (though with a brokered convention, who knows?) the Republican nominee. If you care about the climate, you will want to vote for the Democrat, whoever that is. Full disclosure, when I voted in the Climate Hawks primary, I went for "No Endorsement" for this reason. To my mind, this is in line with what Climate Hawks Votes has tended to do; They avoid giving endorsements to candidates without real climate-savvy records. But, the choice is up to you.

More like this

Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb faced off in the Facebook-CNN sponsored debate. Who won? The individual who "won" is the individual whose poll numbers went up the most, and we don't know that yet. But there are other ways to win, and other ways to…
This is an excellent moment to revel in the complexity of life, and argument, and to appreciate the value of the honest conversation. A candidate is the presumed nominee when she or he obtains the required number of pledged delegates to be at 50% plus a fraction in the total pledged delegate count…
In January, Hillary Clinton still possessed the benefit of the doubt. Memories of her and Bill snarling at Barack Obama in 2008 had faded, and despite her long and dreadful record, it's always possible to turn over a new leaf. But Clinton's ongoing response to Bernie Sanders shows why she is unfit…
This is a guest posts by Claire Cohen Cortright. Claire Cohen Cortright is a mother, climate activist, and biology teacher living in upstate New York. She is an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby and moderator at Global Warming Fact of the Day. ______________________________________________…

There is a clear clear difference, but this difference is small relative to the difference between Democrat and Republican politicians. I would personally say that to solve the climate problem, you have to get money out of US politics.

By Victor Venema … (not verified) on 07 Mar 2016 #permalink

Which is not going to happen any time soon, and until it does, you have to dance with the one that brung ya. Nobody (outside of the brokers themselves) disagrees that we need to get that money out of politics.