Report Card Grading Process
The Criteria and Scoring System Used to Rate the 2008 Presidential CandidatesPresidential candidates are talking about climate change, including global warming, and ways to address this defining challenge of our time. Comparing their statements is like the proverbial apples and oranges. In many cases, proposals are offered with few measurements for success. In some cases, goals are expressed but the individual measures described don’t add up to the goals.
This Report Card is designed to objectively analyze each candidate’s stated positions on climate change (or the energy policy that is a crucial part thereof). Here are the ground rules:
- The Report Card provides a “big picture” of each candidate’s climate policy by comparing their greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and timelines, along with any stated climate action plan that would achieve such targets. Other key components of reducing GHGs include renewable and alternative energy, energy efficiency, and market measures, so these policies are listed separately. In some cases, a candidate does not articulate a comprehensive climate action plan, but does offer policies on the individual measures which reduce GHGs and which collectively might be considered as a plan. Therefore, the key strategies for GHG reductions are presented separately.
- S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (“Sanders-Boxer”) currently pending in Congress is used as a “gold standard” against which candidates’ plans are measured, because:
- It is largely based on California’s Climate Action Plan, much of which has been passed into law and, in some cases, has already been adopted by other states.
- It includes an absolute measurement for success -- atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent gases of not more than 450ppm, the widely recognized “climate stabilization” level.
- It requires both the National Academy of Sciences and the USEPA to periodically review the science and progress under the law, adjusting policies as needed.
- We chose Sanders-Boxer as the standard to create an objective metric for comparison using a proposed federal policy, but there are other good models, such as HR 1950, the Safe Climate Act of 2007 (“Waxman climate legislation”) which are essentially identical.
- In some cases, equivalent policies are offered. For example, some candidates do not support policies that nominally reduce GHGs from vehicles, but do support mileage standards which would have the same effect. Credit is given for these equivalent policies where it is possible to evaluate their impact on GHG emissions.
- The Report Card does not evaluate past positions or actions, only those things the candidate has said he/she would do as President. Consideration is given to support of pending climate legislation.
- Grades can be improved by publicly providing additional measures that would address climate change more comprehensively or that would deliver results sooner.
- These grades are preliminary, because many candidates have not articulated a comprehensive approach (or, in some cases, any policy) to climate change. Candidates may improve their grade by doing their “homework” in the next few weeks and publicly committing to additional measures. Grades will be considered final on December 31, 2007 however (and reissued at that time with any new information factored in), to provide absentee voters in primaries the opportunity to consider each candidate’s complete public position on this issue before casting a ballot.
- After political parties complete their nomination process, grades can be modified based on any new positions taken by each candidate up until September 1, 2008. That deadline provides absentee voters in the general election the opportunity to consider each candidate’s complete public position on this issue before casting a ballot.
Every effort has been made to include all relevant information, including announcements during speeches, statements on official candidate websites, statements of support for legislation or other public policy, and confirmation of positions by direct communication with the policy staff of each candidate.
Corrections or added information is welcome and will be included upon verification, which may alter the candidate’s grade.
By the Numbers
A scoring system of 100 possible total points is used to grade each candidate:
- Up to 25 points for GHG reduction targets. Scientists generally agree that to stabilize the world’s climate at no more than a 2 degree Centigrade temperature increase (often expressed as not more than 450-500 parts per million concentration of CO2 equivalents in the atmosphere) emissions must decline at least below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80% below that by 2050.
- Up to 25 points for a comprehensive climate action plan that achieves the GHG reduction targets set by the candidate, including market and efficiency measures.
- Up to 25 points for practical measures to reduce GHGs from industrial and electricity generation sources.
- Up to 25 points for practical measures to reduce GHGs from transportation sources.
Additional points may be given for plans or measures which exceed the highest GHG reduction targets or which offer innovations to achieve GHG reductions from sources outside the U.S. (thus a candidate could achieve a grade of A+).
“Incomplete” means that the candidate has not offered policies to address climate change at any significant level. Candidates receiving a grade of “Incomplete” will have until December 31, 2007 to submit their “homework” to receive a final grade before the primary elections. If no information is submitted by the deadline, “Incomplete” grades will be converted to a letter grade. The same rule applies to candidates in the general election who do not submit adequate policy information prior to September 1, 2008.
Points are translated into letter grades as:
- 91-100 A
- 81-90 B
- 61-80 C
- 51-60 D
- 0 - 50 F
