Candidate Obama and the ESA

With just 2 years (2005 and 2006) in Congress, Obama scored a 96 in the LCV scorecard. When asked the same LCV question about the ESA, Obama just answered ‘Yes’ to the question. To translate this ‘Yes’, he meant that he supports maintaining the strong protections of the ESA, and thinks that the ESA is fundamentally sound. However, he did not give any plan on how to resolve the conflicts between property rights and species protection.

Similar to Clinton, Obama also rejects the drilling of ANWR, he stated “I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security. We should be cherishing our natural treasures, not defiling them for no good reason.” His logic is similar to Clinton’s, emphasizing that drilling should be avoided if the oil potential is not ‘sufficient’.

According to his Senate website, his key interest in native species protection is to restore the Great Lakes. This website stated “One of the greatest threats facing the Great Lakes is aquatic invasive species. Senator Obama was successful in ensuring that Illinois receives adequate federal funding to operate a barrier to prevent Asian carp from entering Lake Michigan and disrupting the balance of the lake's ecosystem.”

There is very limited information regarding Obama’s position on the ESA. He did not talk about it in his campaign website. Also, he has not made any open discussion about Bush’s record on the ESA. Perhaps, species protection is not on top of Obama’s agenda or he is yet to establish a position of the subject.