Slate’s environmental reporter, whose mildly amusing nom de plume is The Green Lantern, checks in this week with an article that rates the three remaining presidential candidates on their proposed environmental policies. Who ranks highest? The answer, shockingly, is Tom Tancredo. Just kidding, it’s actually Al Gore. No, not him either, because Gore has apparently given up on the unenlightened provincial backwater we like to call home, and is now challenging Bono in primary for the title of World Savior. Donna Braille is moonlighting as his campaign manager again this time, when she’s not making insipid observations as part of CNN’s self-righteously named “best political team on television.”

But seriously, which candidate would be best for halting our precipitous descent into greenhouse gas-filled hell? The answer, unfortunately, is D (none of the above).

As one might expect, the two Democrats have better environmental plans than their Republican counterpart. As one might also expect in a race that has been woefully thin on substantive policy debates, Obama and Clinton’s plans are virtually identical. Central to both of their plans is a cap-and-trade system that lets companies obtain credits which allow them to pollute at a predetermined amount. The government gives out the initial credits and caps them at another predetermined amount, thus supposedly lowering overall carbon emissions. This being America though, companies with unused credits can sell them off to other companies who feel compelled to pollute more than their allotted credits allow. It doesn’t take an expert to see that this seems like a recipe for disaster, although it does reward companies that clean themselves up and can auction their unused credits to insanely wealthy oil companies like Exxon-Mobil.

Clinton and Obama each have ambitious plans for the future. Both want 25% of America’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2025, and to reduce the country’s carbon emissions to a whopping 80% below 1990’s levels by 2050. Of course, neither candidate will be anywhere near the oval office by 2025, and both could be dead by 2050, plus we could all be underwater by then, so I wouldn’t hold my breath (pun intended).

The candidates do have differences, however. Each wants to increase clean energy R&D by $150 billion over ten years, but Obama doesn’t say where the money will come from and Clinton plans to tax oil companies to come up with a third of that price tag. Not surprisingly, the senator from Illinois is higher on biofuels like ethanol than his New York counterpart. Illinois produces 40% of America’s corn supply, and Obama owes Iowa a large bone. Recent studies, on the other hand, suggest that ethanol is little better than gasoline environmentally. Both candidates support controversial “clean” coal, and both are fairly noncommittal on nuclear power. The bottom line? Clinton is slightly better on specifics, but sees the green revolution primarily as an economic stimulus package. Obama is more vague, but views environmentalism as a moral obligation and stumps about more than just energy solutions, so pick your poison.

On the other side of the aisle, John McCain has not released an environmental platform, ’nuff said. Although, to be fair, he does believe in global warming, his senate record is mildly green, and he even co-sponsored the 2003 Climate Stewardship Act. Hell, he might even believe in evolution.

Slate gives McCain a C- for his nonexistent environmental platform, while the Democrats get a “shaky B” apiece. But what did you expect? If you wanted a genuinely green candidate, Dennis “Rodent Man” Kucinich, would have been a better bet. If you’re a green voter and are truly torn, just flip a coin; for the love of God though, don’t vote for Ralph Nader.