"Old Kaine Coal"?

is arguing?

I want this primary between Deeds and Moran to get each of them squarely on the record as to whether or not they would quietly acquiesce to the coal-fired plant like the current governor is doing or if, instead, they would choose to exercise some leadership were they in the governor's mansion right now.

The candidate that proves he can stand up to Dominion and implement a forward-looking energy policy is the one that is likely to get my vote.

I learned a long time ago not to be a one-issue voter.  Even with a list of ten, we can be disappointed.  And I often am.  And so, my advice (unsolicited as it is) is to take all the issues of importance to you and the Commonwealth, the candidates positions on them, their records, their courage, their ability to stand up for progressive values, all the things you look for in a gov, contrast the two candidates, and then make your decision.  But looking at the candidates across all the things it takes to be governor and a great leader, will assure we don't react on "instinct," often-flawed gut feelings, or anger of the moment.  

... it would be OK for a candidate to completely ignore the environment - they'd still get your vote if they were good on other issues? Frankly, that's how we ended up with Tim Kaine. He calculated that environmentalists weren't going to vote for anyone else, so he said just enough to keep us happy, then immediately went to work for Dominion as soon as he got into office. When do we stop being played for fools?

but I can't think of a more important issue than our planet's environment.  As Al Gore has said, it's the moral challenge of our time.

It all comes down to how much one believes in what the majority of scientists are saying - that our planet is basically f'd if we don't do something drastic right now.

For those who believe, I'd say it goes far beyond a moral challenge.  This is World War III - with utter ruin for almost all mankind (and many other species of plant and animal) if we don't fight and win.   What would have happened if a politician running in 1942 ignored WWII?  Or said it didn't matter?  Or said they didn't believe the Axis powers were a real threat?  Or said that we've got to worry about our economy first?  

While we shouldn't be single-issue voters, any politician who doesn't step up in a big way to address the single biggest issue of our time doesn't deserve our votes, our financial contributions, our volunteer efforts and certainly doesn't deserve to hold any office.  At this point in time, failing to fight hard against global warming is total negligence and every candidate needs to hear that message and, more importantly, act on that message.

I know where Brian Moran stands on that one...
Moran Fights for the Beach and Wins!
http://www.vbdems.org/?p=1325

We gotta make sure this Saxman bill gets defeated!
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi...

"protecting consumers from rising energy bills or easing our growing dependence on imported fossil fuels."

Actually, as just about any economist will confirm, if you want to consume less of something (e.g., oil) or emit less of something (e.g, carbon dioxide), you need to raise the price of that thing.  In other words, the goal of easing our dependence on imported fossil fuels is in direct contradiction to the goal of "protecting consumers from rising energy bills."  To the contrary, the market right now is causing "demand destruction" via the time-tested method known as "higher prices."  Our problem as a nation is that we've grown addicted to cheap energy and now are being confronted with a dramatic shift away from that paradigm without any serious plan of how to do it.  See "The End of Suburbia" for more...

I reviewed the General Assembly's session tracking system from 1996-2008 for Delegate Moran. In 12 years, he has sponsored exactly three bills with even tangential implications to the Commonwealth's overall environmental policy... two in 2003, one in 2008. I submit those three bills for your review here, here, and here.

Now, lets take a look at Creigh Deed's record. During his time in the General Assembly, he has sponsored no less than 46 bills on topics from game management, to land preservation, to watershed protection, to agricultural best practices regulation... here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Neither of them have a record on coal, but I'd rather have a legislator with a proven commitment to the environment sitting in the Governor's mansion come January 2010.

Agreed that Deeds has the better track record on environmental issues in general. And having spoken to both candidates, I agree that Deeds more strongly feels the urgency of the environmental problems we face, including global warming.

But Deeds' silence on the Wise County plant has been deafening. How can Deeds be both for climate action and for a new coal-fired power plant that promotes the use of mountaintop-removed coal and could be found illegal under the Clean Air Act?

props for using a Stephen Colbert reference. :-p

I figured it would come up sooner or later.

Just as a note, the last person elected to statewide office with a thin environmental record? My own account's namesake. Though I don't expect you to agree with it, there is a fair argument to be made that the Wise County Plant was chiefly an issue to be dealt with by the SCC, various permitting boards, local legislators, and the governor... and that neither Brian or Creigh had any business with it in particular. That's not to say they shouldn't stake out a careful and progressive stance on coal in the near future... because it is a reasonable expectation that potential statewides would take a policy stance on a large industry and environmental polluter.

Not Tim Kaine's account's namesake. I just noticed the typo. Best head off to bed before I make any more of them.

the raw number of bills, many tweaking minor points in the law, suggest gubernatorial superiority.  I started looking at what the bills were for (am halfway down and will finish at some point) and so far am not WOWed.

Miles, you're asking exactly the right questions at the right time.  If either of these candidates wants to put their money where their mouth is on climate change, now's the moment to do so.

Virginia Dems, with rare exceptions, have long been as spineless as jellyfish when it comes to the environment.  But this approach is as out of date as Grandpa's Buick.  The green movement has advanced to the point that even some of the most traditionally conservative Republican states are barrelling ahead of Virginia -- like (ahem!) Texas, #2 state in windpower generation.  

Creigh and Brian, the gauntlet is at your feet.  Pick it up or run away from it -- either way, we're watching you and will take note.