Greenpeace Graded All the Presidential Candidates’ Climate Policies. They Weren’t Impressed.

Joe Biden scored a D-. Trump got an F.

Zach Gibson/Getty

This story was originally published by Grist and is shared here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. 

Julián Castro, President Obama’s former secretary of housing, thinks he can stand out in the crowded presidential field by focusing on climate change.

At a recent stop in New Hampshire, the candidate laid out his climate agenda and environmental bonafides. In 2016, focusing on climate change might have been an eye-catching strategy. But in 2019, Castro isn’t the only candidate, or even the first candidate this election cycle, to put the issue front and center.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren kicked off the climate policy discussion with a public lands bill in mid-April. Two months later, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee produced their own plans in quick succession. A host of other contenders, from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand to entrepreneur Andrew Yang, support the Green New Deal, an economy-wide climate deal led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

So which candidates actually have the green track records to live up to their climate promises?

new scorecard from environmental group Greenpeace USA assigned grades to all 19 of the Democrats who have qualified for the first two primary debates. They even scored the two Republican candidates, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and President Trump (spoiler alert: They both got Fs).

Turns out Castro might want to pick a different issue to stand out from the rest of the 2020 climate leaders. He scored a D+, while Inslee, who has a long history of championing environmental legislation, got the highest score with an A-. Senators Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders ranked close behind Inslee with a B+ each. According to Greenpeace, Castro neglected to set a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target, concoct a plan to manage the phase-out of fossil fuels, or enact policies to fight environmental racism.

As a result, Castro garnered a mere 25 points out of the available 100. He’s still ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, and Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Those three got a D- apiece.

Greenpeace

To determine how to score each candidate, Greenpeace sent around a 29-question survey that centered on two major themes, each worth 50 points: Will the candidate end the era of fossil fuels, and will they champion a Green New Deal?

It wasn’t a simple yes or no test. The survey asked for concrete targets for phasing out greenhouse gases, left blank spaces for candidates to write in specific policies, and even asked how candidates would go about setting up their cabinets. Greenpeace also examined each contenders climate and environment record—what policies they supported while in office, whether they took the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, and the planks of their climate platforms (if applicable). The group says it intends to update the scorecard as candidates adjust or add new elements to their platforms.

Will Castro manage to establish himself as a climate leader before the Democratic primary starts hemorrhaging contenders? Time will tell. In the meantime, I’m curious what kind of climate policy would warrant an A+ from Greenpeace. Relocate the polar bears to Antarctica? Durian burgers for all? A nationwide ban on flying? I guess we’ll never know.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate