Politicians need a host of skills, but there was one that the old John McCain was proud not to possess: the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

On Tuesday, while perched on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, McCain proved that he's mastered that trick.

"It is time for America to get serious about energy independence, and that means we need to start drilling offshore at advanced oil rigs like this,'' McCain said, from the giant, 10,000-barrel-per-day structure owned by Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Barack Obama has said that offshore drilling "won't solve our problem. . . . He's wrong, and the American people know it," McCain said.

Unfortunately, although many Americans believe that offshore drilling will provide real relief from high energy prices, it's the new McCain who's wrong. Before he switched positions, McCain opposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling and had this to say: "Those resources, which would take years to develop, would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels." That's still true.

McCain assumed his party's thin green mantle with his focus on global warming and his support for a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. But how green a president would McCain be? Judging by his Senate career, the answer is: not very.

Last year McCain received a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters - an organization whose members aren't given to chaining themselves to trees. His lifetime score from the group is just 24 percent. That's less than one-third the ratings given to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Earlier this summer, McCain backed a gas tax holiday. That's another bad idea. It would have helped to keep demand high and deprived the nation of money needed to repair collapsing roads and bridges. He has opposed moves to eliminate subsidies for oil companies and, until recently, opposed tax incentives to stimulate production of alternative energy sources.

In an issue that will hit home hard in New Hampshire this winter, McCain has also opposed additional funding for the national low-income fuel assistance program because he didn't like how its cost would be borne. Now, however, he says he will support "whatever is necessary to help people meet literally incredible challenges this winter." But what about next year?

McCain deserves points for being one of the first senior members of his party to recognize global warming as a monumental problem. But his plan to address climate change with a cap on carbon emissions would lead to fewer reductions than Obama's plan.

Because it's an election year, Obama and McCain are both espousing some environmental policies that, while popular, are potentially unproductive and cause new problems. Obama, for example, backs ethanol as a response to high gas prices when in corn country, but production of that fuel produces a minimal energy gain while driving up the cost of food.

To his credit, McCain wants to end the government subsidy of ethanol production. But he supports building new nuclear power plants, which would require huge government subsidies. Obama also supports an expansion of nuclear power, with the caveat that government must first address the nuclear waste issue.

Neither candidate is likely to engender envy in Kermit the Frog. But McCain's lack of concern with the nuclear waste issue, his support of a gas tax holiday, his new passion for drilling his way out of the energy crisis and his Senate record raise serious questions about how environmentally responsible a president he would be.