After posting my last piece on Barack Obama and global warming, a reader, Brandon, sent me his  comparison of the Democrat's environmental record with that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

You can judge for yourself by reading his "greenpiece" blog by clicking here. Brandon's analysis is essentially that the Republican frontrunner's record on green issues is arguably as strong as Obama's record.

(My comment is that, even if Brandon is correct, the similarities between Obama and McCain are only in the realm of protecting nature. There's absolutely no similarity between them, for example, on the Iraq war -- where McCain has said he supports America remaining in the conflict for a century or more, and Obama wants the U.S. out by the end of 2009.)

But in the Green Realm, Brandon writes that both Obama and McCain have been endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters in past Senate races. Both support capping greenhouse gases to fight global warming, which they acknowledge is real and man-made; both oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; both support expansion of nuclear power as a way to generate more electricity with little greenhouse gas pollution.

But here's the interesting part: "McCain opposed Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill that included huge tax giveaways to oil companies with record revenues. Obama supported the bill.
Obama supported a law that required 25% of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by 2025, McCain opposed a similar federal law.

McCain opposed the 2007 Energy Bill written by Democrats which mandated improved vehicle fuel economy standards by 2020, Obama supported the bill.

Obama did not join McCain and 44 other Republican and Democratic Senators in urging the Environmental Protection Agency to draft stricter Mercury restrictions," Brandon writes.

Anyone else have an opinion on this issue?  Would America's forests and fields be as protected under McCain as Obama?