First, you should know what each office can do. For instance, Texas has a Railroad Commissioner, it would seem that this position would manage trains, but they actually manage oil and gas, so they can shift environmental policy in a big way towards responsible use.
Some factors to sift out greener candidates likely to make the earth more liveable:
What is the candidate promising to do for the environment? Good answers will be feasible.
Do they seem like they understand environmental science? Do they listen to researched and knowledgeable experts? No human is an expert in every relevant field, but the more informed they seem to be, the better. Especially look for candidates with creative and reasonable ideas.
Have they shown any effort in sustainability? Gaining power does not make someone more likely to do good with their power. For example you should be suspicious of a candidate that sold land rights for previously protected and cherished lands to the highest bidding oil company. If they made their business’s building Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified that would be a good sign they will act positively for the environment in office.
What is their bias? Obviously integrity is important for anyone. If you can’t trust them to do what they say, why would you want them in office? Look at their background. For instance, if they own a hydroelectric dam building company they will have an economic incentive to not make fair choices for when picking renewable energy sources to sponsor. If a coal power company supported their campaign, they might not pass good clean air bills as a favor to them. Finally, remember that we elect people not policies.
How do you find the best candidates? Basically research with a critical mind. I like to check the candidates' campaign page to discover their positions in their own words. I also check some 3rd party sources that give facts on the history and stated goals of the candidate. I recommend using multiple sources to avoid false information. Watch for biased reporting on all sides and glittering generalities. It's easy for a politician to sound good if they never say anything specific. Should you believe a candidate that says they care about environmental responsibility, but never state any definite plans for it?
Also some places put propositions to the vote too. Some may have little stated connection to the environment. But still consider the green aspect. Propositions may include developing an economically stagnant section of town, which could reduce urban sprawl and consequently less habitat loss; they could include localizing a resource which means less transportation and so, less emissions; or even delivering printed voter guides to every residence in the district could produce unnecessary paper waste. For these, do some research beforehand to what they are trying to do and how they intend to do it. Educate yourself on environmental issues (like you’re doing now- good job) so you can recognize potential improvements and problems. Policies can have unintended consequences especially when people don’t think them through. Politicians and business owners are tricky. Sometimes even worthwhile causes like the environment can be plots for personal gain. Because of these factors, consider the proposition’s methods and means. Some propositions would put costs so high they would bankrupt their district. Some propositions without proper incentives would just generate paperwork but create no actual change. Plans should be feasible. And in my mind, small improvements are better than no improvements.
Lastly, there are many important issues to consider when voting. Please vote your values, but please also value the health of this planet. If earth becomes unlivable, no politician or proposition can save us.
Photo by Mouse23
Comments