All eyes will be on Pennsylvania this Tuesday when the once irelevant Pennsylvania primary becomes the election that may make or break Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination; or, depending on your preferences, confirms or prolongs Sen. Barack Obama's unexpected race to the nomination.

But lost in all this hype is the ironic coincidence that Tuesday is also Earth Day, once a grassroots recognition of the infant environmental movement and now a corporate product-fest in which every polluter from Exxon to Exelon makes its annual pitch to convince you how "green" they truly are.

But perhaps this harmonic convergence offers us an opportunity.

Why not take this time to assess how green each of the three remaining presidential canidates truly is?

I'd like to take credit for this idea, but Newsweek beat me by about, what else?, a week.

So forgive me if I forgo re-inventing the wheel here and simply regurgitate some of their reporting for those of you who may have missed last week's issue.

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of this issue is how much more important this issue has become to voters.
Thanks the success of the insidious media conspiracy to hype the threat of global warming (with a little help from the overwhelming majority of the scientific community), the environment, and global warming in particular, has moved up the list of things voters find important in a candidate.

The most amazing thing about this is how successful the media conspiracy is. Newsweek tells us (if they are to be believed) that of the 3,231 questions asked by the leading political reporters of the five major networks during the 14 zillion televised debates, exactly eight related to global warming.

Those must have been some eight questions!

In 2005, only 11 percent of voters told a Zogby poll they took a presidential canidate's environmental credentials into account when choosing a candidate. By last year, it had jumped to 33 percent.

Anyhoo, despite the Bush administration's assault on just about every environmental regulations on the books -- from clean water, to clean air to endangered species to endangered habitat -- the environmental debate in this year's election will focus on one major issue: energy.

This is appropriate because it now touches on so many other aspects of American life and politics.

Beyond the most glaring connection -- that between global warming and the carbon created by our glutonous use of energy -- energy is now also a national security issue.

Until we can power our economy with power generated right here in the good old U.S. of A., we will continue to find ourselves entangled in the tribal and religious politics of the Middle East, something we neither understand, nor have the capacity or patience to understand.

And since we can't drill our way to independence (nor should we want to) that means an Apollo program for alternative fuel technology is our best chance for maintaining our standard of living.

Which brings us back to the Oval Office applicants.

Newsweek assembled one of those nifty graphics which helps us seem to understand the candidates' positions without needing to look for depth or shades of grey.

Stay with me while I crib shamelessly from it:

1) On "Greenhouse Gas Emissions," both Democrats hold the same position -- a cap-and-trade system to cut CO2 emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican candidate, supports a similar system, but one driven by the market and he has not come out in support of mandatory caps.

2) On "Fuel-Efficiency Standards," both Democrats again support increasing the standard above 50 miles per hour by 2026, while McCain favors improved mileage, but hasn't set a specific goal or target date.

3) In the "Renewable Energy" arena (in my opinion, the most important), both Democrats have identical positions -- 25 percent of the nation's electricity generated by renewable sources by 2025. McCain, again is generally in favor but offers no specifics.

4) "Biofuels," perhaps the biggest scam to hit the public spectrum since the pet rock, has nevertheless attracted identical positions from both Democrats -- 60 billion gallons in the fuel supply by 2025. McCain, (have you guessed yet?) favors them, but offers no specifics and opposes government subsidies to develop them.

5) "Coal" is perhaps the most politically sensitive subject for an Earth Day primary in Pennsylvania, but here goes -- say it along with me, both Democrats support coal liquification if it emits 20 percent less carbon than the gasoline we use today. McCain on the other hand, do I need to say it?, favors the process but has not articulated a position.

6) As for "Nuclear Energy," a subject of some interest to those of us who count the Limerick nuclear towers as part of our permanent landscape, there is finally some difference. Clinton calls herself "agnostic" about nuclear power because of the problems getting rid of its waste. Obama calls nuclear power "not optimal," but recognizes it as an existing energy source that should be utilized. McCain is a strong proponent of nuclear power, arguing it keeps greenhouse emissions down and promotes energy independence.

So there you have it folks, for those of you who had the energy to plow through all this, you now know before you vote that Clinton and Obama are essentially identical on the energy front and that McCain, who has made some impressive but ineffectual environmental votes in the past, looks with nonspecific favor on a number of clean energy initiatives.

Whatever you decide, please vote.

Pennsylvania is perhaps more relevant than it has ever been to America's electoral portrait this year and that's nothing to be bitter about.