Who is greener? According to David Roberts, a bit of a toss-up, with a slight edge to Obama.
In terms of climate/energy policy proposals, there's not a whole lot of distance between Obama and Clinton. On this issue as on so many others, they both followed Edwards' early lead and ended up with strong, ambitious plans. Both would substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost clean energy; both pitch sustainability as an issue of shared sacrifice and economic opportunity; both have an impressive grasp of the policy details.
[snip]Clinton burned all those tires (long story). As a Democratic power broker and high-powered lawyer of long standing, she's been cozy with some fairly unsavory corporate players, from Alcoa to Wal-Mart.
Obama, on the other hand, is an Illinois pol. That means he is, by necessity, a little friendlier with coal, ethanol, and nuclear interests than greens might like. Those allegiances led him to vote for the monstrosity that was the Energy Act of 2005, a porkfest that funneled subsidies to all three interest groups (Clinton voted against it). Early last year, he pushed legislation boosting liquid coal. (When greens threw a fit he backed off somewhat, making clear that liquid coal is kosher only if it meets low-carbon fuel standards.) As the NYT exhaustively documents, he gets big campaign contributions from Exelon, a nuclear outfit based in Illinois; his campaign adviser David Axelrod once consulted for the company.
There is, however, no smoking gun of quid pro quo in either's career, and both are well-regarded by greens.
[From Obama v. Clinton: Who's Greener?]
Fact sheets here (Clinton) and here (Obama)
