Roads to ‘08 leaving footprint

Former Sen. John Edwards‘ 2008 presidential campaign has paid nearly $22,000 to offset its global-warming emissions this year, including more than $5,000 a month from April through June, making him the candidate with the largest acknowledged output of greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign spent $2,367 to offset its emissions for April alone, while Sen. Christopher J. Dodd paid $650 for his presidential campaign’s emissions from April through June.

Together, they are the three campaign pioneers in the new world of carbon neutrality: the idea of “offsetting” their greenhouse-gas emissions by paying a third-party company to plant trees, build clean-energy projects or take other steps that will lead to less carbon dioxide being emitted.

Presidential campaigns, it turns out, are a dirty business, environmentally speaking — and for the first time, the campaigns’ Federal Election Commission reports are providing a glimpse of just how dirty they are when it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In short, Mr. Edwards‘ acknowledged “carbon footprint” is at least double the size of Mrs. Clinton‘s, and the comparison prompts the question of whether he is dirtier, or whether she is less diligent in figuring out what her campaign is emitting.

At $12 a ton — the rate she pays to Native Energy, her chosen offsets provider — Mrs. Clinton’s payment amounts to almost 200 metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions for April alone.

Mr. Edwards, who also uses Native Energy, emitted nearly 450 tons a month in April, May and June, judging by his own $16,146 payment his campaign says he made on July 11. He had made an earlier $5,850 payment on March 30.

By comparison, the average American’s emissions for an entire year runs about 20 metric tons, while the average European’s emissions comes to about 10 tons.

All three Democrats have touted their efforts on the campaign trail.

Mr. Edwards went first, announcing in March that at the time “we’re the only campaign in either party to make the carbon-neutral pledge.” Mrs. Clinton followed the next month, timing her pledge to coincide with Earth Day.

But it’s tougher to evaluate how well they are living up to their pledges. Campaign-finance reports give only a snapshot of the campaigns’ efforts, and the picture is clouded by the traditional secrecy that surrounds campaigns.

While Mr. Dodd’s campaign provided a near-complete breakdown of his carbon emissions for one month, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Edwards would give details of what they cover or what they emit.

Those who track the issue say disclosure is the key to judging who is living up to the pledge.

“When someone is running for office, I think voters appreciate transparency, and I think voters appreciate actions more than words,” said Julia Bovey, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Action Fund. “I would hope that any candidate who claims a commitment to cutting back on global-warming pollution is also open to talking about what they’re doing.”

The NRDC Action Fund, the political arm of the nonprofit environmental group, issued a challenge in February to all of the candidates, asking them to run carbon-neutral campaigns.

Story Continues →