Pollsters will tell you the environment is the last thing on voters’ minds during an election year. Domestic policy, health care, and a candidate’s so-called character usually top our list of important issues. Sometimes, a good environmental record could even harm a candidate’s chances.

In the 2000 Presidential Election, Gore kept his progressive environmental policy under wraps for fear it would get him labeled a radical liberal. Clean air and safe drinking water-it doesn’t get much more radical than that.

Still, with issues like the war in Iraq and a crumbling intelligence community dominating the networks and debates, the environment probably won’t get much airtime this election. But that doesn’t make it any less important. And the sooner voters start to realize that the state of the environment is intimately connected to sound-bite issues like socialized health care and a sagging economy, the better off this country will be. But enough preaching. Without further ado, we give you the Outdoor and Environmental Scorecard for the 2004 Presidential Election.

-Graham Averill

GEORGE W. BUSH

(I’m not drilling for oil, I’m looking for terrorists.)

Forests: Bush’s so-called Healthy Forest Restoration Initiative allows logging companies to clear potential fuel around towns in danger from forest fires. Critics say the plan opens national forests to extensive logging under the guise of fire protection and that 50 percent of the areas authorized for logging aren’t near the communities Bush says he’s protecting.

Air: Bush’s much-maligned Clear Skies Initiative weakens the emisisons requirements for power plants and factories. Bush is also seeking to allow coal-fired power plants to put three times more mercury in the air than the current law allows.

Water: The Bush administration has promised to create, improve, and protect at least three million wetland acres over the next five years, but his Fiscal Year 2005 budget proposes to decrease the amount of wetlands to be protected by 50 percent.

Toxic Waste: Bush refuses to reinstate the Superfund Polluter Pays Trust Fund, which forces major polluters to pay for the cleanup of the messes they create. Bush’s refusal to reinstate the polluter-funded trust passes over $10 billion in clean up costs to taxpayers.

Energy: Bush has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and continues to press for more oil exploration along U.S. coastlines. He also supports expanded mountaintop removal coal mining in Southern Appalachia.

Miscellaneous: President Bush is an avid mountain biker. Seriously.

The Bottom Line: Green heavy-hitters like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters say Bush has rolled back over 200 environmental laws and is the worst environmental president in recent history.

JOHN KERRY

(Did I mention I was a war hero?)

Forests: Senator Kerry supports logging and fuel reduction activities required to sustain the timber industry and protect western communities from fires, saying, “the ‘Healthy Forests’ plan undertakes important forest management activities.” Kerry’s recently developed forest plan is similar to the “Healthy Forests” plan, but it does center more of the proposed logging around the communities in danger.

Air: Kerry supports enforcing the existing Clean Air Act as opposed to President Bush’s “Clear Skies” rollbacks. He also supported an amendment to require aging power plants to upgrade their pollution control technologies.

Water: Kerry supports strengthening the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. He also voted to prevent the Bush administration from allowing more arsenic in drinking water standards.

Toxic Waste: The Senator advocates the restoration of the Superfund Polluter Pays Trust Fund.

Energy: He was a key player in the fight against Arctic drilling and led the (failed) effort to increase fuel efficiency in autos.

Miscellaneous: Kerry is prone to wearing denim while walking in the woods. Check out the environmental page on his web site-nothing but jean jackets and nice trees.

The Bottom Line: Both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters endorse him. Kerry says a lot of nice things about the environment and has fought some noble battles while in the Senate. The real question is: will Kerry change his tune on these issues (like he has in the past with the Healthy Forests Initiative), or will he stick to his guns and make environmental protection a priority?

DAVID COBB

(My own party doesn’t even want you to vote for me.)

Forests: Cobb would impose a ban on both industrial timber harvesting and road building in our National Forests. He also avidly protests the privatization of public lands.

Air: Not only does Cobb want to return to a strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act, he’d like to enhance the act to make it tougher.

Water: The Green candidate supports the strengthening of the Clean Water Act and would like to set strict requirements for wetland protection and water quality standards.

Toxic Waste: Cobb and the Green Party support forcing the companies responsible for toxic pollution to pay for the costs of the cleanup. They also support the rapid shutdown of existing toxic waste incinerators.

Energy: Cobb wants to cut the subsidization of oil, coal and nuclear industries and use that tax money to invest in the production of clean, renewable energy sources like solar powered hydrogen farms and wind energy. Cobb would also like to shift $25 billion from the Pentagon budget in order to export renewable energy to third world countries.

Miscellaneous: Cobb would raise automobile’s standard miles per gallon to 45 and turn weapons facilities into labs that would create breakthrough technology for electric cars and solar electric applications. Cobb managed the Green Party effort in Texas during Nader’s campaign.

The Bottom Line: The Green Party candidate has some interesting ideas and it would be refreshing if some of the “mainstream” (read: elect-able) candidates would take a page from his platform and start thinking more seriously about things like renewable energy.

RALPH NADER

(Why are all my friends mad at me?)

Forests: Nader wants to put public interests over corporate interests in our public lands. He’d like to shut down all commercial logging and road building in the National Forest system and increase funds to the National Park System.

Air: Nader supports strict enforcement of the Clean Air Act and his clean air policy wouldn’t subsidize oil, nuclear, electric or coal mining industries.

Water: Nader was responsible for the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if he were president, he’d increase the protection of drinking water sources, many of which have unsafe levels of cancer-causing pollutants, according to a study done by one of Nader’s action groups.

Toxic Waste: Nader was instrumental in the passage of the Superfund Law that many environmentalists are fighting to reinstate. He’d also like to strengthen existing toxic standards.

Energy: The independent candidate would invest heavily in renewable energy and diversify the United States’ energy portfolio, reducing our reliability on oil and all the baggage that comes with it.

Miscellaneous: Nader was instrumental in the development of the EPA. If elected president, he would remove hemp from the DEA’s list of illicit substances and implement a licensing system similar to Canada’s so legitimate farmers could grow the plant from USDA certified seeds.

The Bottom Line: He may not be the most popular person in America right now, but Nader is responsible for some of the most groundbreaking environmental laws on the books. This guy has gotten more done than all of the candidates put together-and he’s never held public office.