If you think Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a straight-talking, courageous politician on the issue of global warming, watch this jaw-dropping clip from last night's Republican presidential debate:
The transcript is online, so we can go through McCain's entire Orwellian answer to moderator Tim Russert. [Note: This was following a question to Giuliani about the global warming threat to Florida and his opposition to mandatory caps, which I'll briefly discuss at the end.] Russert said, correctly:
Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps.
And, as you've seen, McCain immediately answers:
No, I'm in favor of cap-and-trade. And Joe Lieberman and I, one of my favorite Democrats and I, have proposed that -- and we did the same thing with acid rain.
And all we are saying is, "Look, if you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, you earn a credit. If somebody else is going to increase theirs, you can sell it to them." And, meanwhile, we have a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
As a great American once said: you cannot be serious! My jaw dropped (yes, I was watching, and yes, I'm a hardcore political junkie). I know McCain was beaten up in Michigan by Romney for supporting CAFE standards to deal with global warming, and I know "mandates" are as popular with conservatives as taxes are, but this is Romney-esque doubletalk. Europe has a mandate. We dealt with acid rain with a mandate. And McCain's own climate bill with Lieberman is a mandate.
A straight talker would not use those two wishy-washy "can's." Nothing about "can" is mandatory or threatening to conservatives. What a wonderful world McCain is imagining: If "somebody else" increases their emissions -- not you, of course, you'll be the one reducing emissions cheaply and getting rich with all the credits -- "you can sell it to them." Well, that is double-doubletalk.
First, a straight talker would note that the person who increases their emissions must buy a credit (though obviously not necessarily from you). Second, a straight talker would not imply that the point of a cap-and-trade is to allow someone who decreases their emissions to sell credits to someone who increases them -- the point is to set the cap well below current levels (as McCain's own bill does) so that everyone decreases their emissions, but allowing those who can achieve very deep reductions cost-effectively to sell to those who can't.
If John "Straight Talk" McCain can't tell conservatives the truth about what this country will need to do to stop catastrophic global warming, who can? Buck up, John -- A real man says "mandate."
The rest of his answer is equally unsettling:
We need a global agreement, but it has to include India and China. We need to go back to nuclear power. We cannot be dependent on $400 billion a year paying for foreign oil. There's a nexus here.
Well, there may be a nexus here, but it isn't between nuclear power and cutting foreign oil use, since we don't drive our cars on electricity (though hopefully some of us will in the near future). Again, a straight talker would not coyly leave the impression that we can significantly cut our $400 billion energy bill with nuclear power and without mandates -- either for much tougher fuel economy standards or alternative fuel vehicles.
But climate change, in my view, is real. It can affect states like Florida dramatically, because I think it has to do with violent weather changes, as well.
But I am confident -- I am confident American technology and the embrace of green technologies, many of the things that Rudy just talked about, and nuclear power being one of them, we can reduce these greenhouse gas emissions.
McCain never mentions a single strategy except the one that conservatives like, nuclear power, which he mentions twice. And if he is implying nuclear power is green power, well, that isn't straight talk either. I have never heard McCain advocate any other solution to global warming but nuclear power. As I blogged earlier, in a March 2006 interview, he stated he would demand legislation to expand U.S. nuclear power as part of his efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions (I guess nuclear mandates are okay):
It's the only technology presently available to quickly step up to meet our energy needs.
Incorrect. As many independent reports make clear -- as former Vice President Al Gore told Congress last year -- that nuclear may be a part of the solution, but probably only a very limited part. [Note to McCain: nuclear ain't quick. Most experts I've talked to think it would take at least a decade to spin the industry up to a level where it could deliver plants at a rate needed to have any significant impact: three nuclear plants built each week for 50 years!]
Going back to McCain's words in the debate: "in my view" does not cut it. We're not going to do this because McCain thinks climate change is real. We're going to do this because that's what the science says. Yes, I know, conservatives don't do things because scientists say so, but this is relevant to McCain's final bit of doubletalk:
And suppose that we are wrong, and there's no such thing as climate change, and we hand our kids a cleaner world. But suppose we are right and do nothing.
I think that's a challenge for America. We can meet it.
Uh, no.
I know that McCain likes this formulation -- he often says,"suppose I'm wrong" which is much worse -- and I've heard other climate advocates use it. But it is very weak, and ultimately counterproductive.
Why? First, this formulation will leave many people -- especially those inclined to be skeptical -- the impression that the chance he is wrong about climate change is somehow comparable to the chance he is right. But the point is, this isn't about what McCain thinks, it is about what the science says -- and at this point there is exceedingly little chance that continuing on our current course of uncontrolled emissions is anything but a guaranteed catastrophe. That's why normally reserved scientists are getting so desperate.
A more imporant flaw in this formulation: If there's no such thing as human-caused climate change, as many of his conservative brethren believe, then nobody in their right minds would pass a law to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 60 to 80 percent in four decades -- unless of course you are trying to leave listeners with the (false) impression that such cuts can be done so easily that they are no big imposition on Americans, certainly not requiring unpleasant mandates or other things conservatives would never, ever embrace unless the fate of the planet were at stake.
Yes, I know unrestricted carbon dioxide emissions will eventually render the ocean nearly lifeless, but again, that's yet another reason why his phrasing is so lame -- we must reduce CO2, not to hand our kids a cleaner world, as important as that is, but to avoid destroying the planet's livability for our kids and their kids and the next 50 generations!
Right now, McCain is not a straight-talking or courageous politician on global warming -- though he is vastly superior to all of the other GOP candidates. You can read Rudy's answer to Russert here -- it is just the old Bush-Luntz/Lomborg/Gingrich "technology, technology, technology, blah, blah, blah" routine.
If McCain gets the nomination, I wonder if he will be more honest with the public. If not, I would strongly recommend that his opponent expose his doubletalk, but that is a topic for a later blog post ...
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 11:10 am
25 Jan 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:40 pm
25 Jan 2008
Also, his comments 'bout "if I'm wrong" were to illustrate to climate change doubters that if climate change didn't exist, and they enacted legislation anyway, the overall results would still only be positive. He's sayin' the worst that would happen would be that there was no climate change, but since we end up with cleaner air anyway, so long as they pass legislation, then they should go ahead and pass it.
I don't see how that's doubletalk or wishy-washy in any way, 'specially considerin' that he's tryin' to convince a conservative audience of climate doubters to actually support climate legislation.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:07 pm
25 Jan 2008
In other words, Global Warming plays entirely into the hands of the current wealth holders and "freezes the game". In this game of musical chairs it goes like this: Don't have a chair to sit on? Sorry, making another chair for you would have us cut down a tree in the Amazon, which will increase CO2, which will force up minor temperature changes into big changes and then have all heck crashing down on us. Now you wouldn't want that to happen...would you? Ok, great...there's a corner over there for you to sit in....
Let's stop being crazy for a second.
We're talking about CO2.
Not NO. No So2. Not some noxious, terrible smog inducing gas, but something that trees and orchids eat for food.
CO2.
Strip away the Rube Goldbergian chain of events (forcings?) that somehow make CO2 cause us to engineer rulers measured in cubits and relearn ark building, and we could have a whole lot of nothing on our hands.
If we wanna, yes we can can.
--Pointer Sisters
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:32 pm
25 Jan 2008
If we enacted legislation that cut down on air pollution, there would also likely be a drop in medical conditions associated with air pollution, things like asthma, respiratory problems, cancer, and even some cases of premature death and stillbirths. Since most populations living in areas near refineries, coal plants, and factories aren't exactly considered to be "upper class", there's a higher chance that taxpayer money will be used to pay for their medical bills. And since they live near said pollution areas, they're more likely to obtain said medical problems.
Decreases in pollution lead to decreases in medical costs.
It's also been shown that there is a direct correlation between the health of waterways and associated marine life and the amount of pollution in the air. Increased CO2 levels lead to increased acidification of water, which leads to larger fish die-offs and destruction of valuable wetlands and coral reefs, which most of the world's fishieries rely on.
Increased air pollution leads to decreased stocks of fish and other aquatic wildlife, thus costin' the fishin' industry more.
Increased air pollution has also been shown to lead to greater degredation and acidfication of surrounding soils, especially near point sources like power plants and refineries. Land becomes less productive.
Increased air pollution leads to less productive land, thus costin' agriculture.
Increased air pollution also effects property values. Recent polls have shown that among the top reasons that suburban Californians didn't want to move to the inner-cities was the fear of increased pollution. They also stated that they believed that Califonia's air pollution was effectin' their property values as a whole. Several California cities also conducted polls amongst potential tourists and prospective businesses that listed pollution as one of their main concerns for stayin' away from certain areas of California.
Air pollution affects property values and tourism.
Also, there are more fatalities in traditional power industries (like coal and gas) than in renewables (even when compared to their relative difference in current size). There's less instances of work-related accidents and deaths. If the energy industry were to convert mostly to renewables, then fatalaties and accidents would most likely drop.
There's also less likely chances of contamination of ground water or residential or recreational areas with renewables. When traditional power sources cause contamination, it usually costs money to fix.
There are just as many economic reasons to limit air pollution and GHGs as their are to keepin' the status quo. And when the ecological and health-related benefits are added in, it just makes good economic sense to limit it and eventually phase it out all together.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:57 pm
25 Jan 2008
Sure, CO2 is a 'natural' gas, and is part of the Earth's atmosphere, and is necessary for plant life to 'breathe.' But, like anything else, too much of a good thing can be harmful. If we can't control its production, or regulate its introduction (cap and trade) perhaps we can figure out a way to break it back down into its component parts, carbon (a stable black powder) and oxygen (another gas, necessary for US to breathe).
Des Emery
Permalink
Tom Twigg Posted 3:50 pm
25 Jan 2008
I'd like to take your "it's just CO2, don't get your panties in a bind" mentality and take it to preposterous extremes to make a point (that you won't get ... whatever). OK, plants need CO2, so it can't be a bad thing, right? Let's say by some freak of nature a giant bubble of pure CO2 forms in the atmosphere and (for reasons I can't fathom) descends on Kent, WA. How you liking CO2 now? What, you can't breath? Are you sure? I mean, the trees love the stuff, right?
Most of the people in Kent are, I'm sure, not pricks, and the CO2 bubble that was suffocating you thankfully dissipates as mysteriously as if formed, just in time to save your sorry attitude ... you will live to lurk in Gristmill another day, yea!
The point I try to make (that you won't get ... whatever) is that even innocuous things like CO2, when out of balance, can become a real problem on a planet that has taken billions of years to create the tenuous equilibriums the support life here. Hell, even O2 becomes dangerous in high concentrations (you're not a smoker are you?). Oh, and water, that wondrous life-giving liquid is another good example ... too much falls from the sky, floods ... drink too much too fast, kills ya (or so I read on the internets). Could too much CO2 be a problem? Even you must admit it is possible (I can call that bubble back at any time, so think hard.).
If a twigg falls in the forest but nobody is there to hear it, it's probably best because there is bound to be cussing.
Permalink
ids Posted 3:55 am
26 Jan 2008
"OBAMA: That's why I want to set up a cap and trade system. We're going to cap greenhouse gases. We're going to say to every polluter that's sending greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, "We're going to charge you a dollar -- we're going to charge you money for every unit of greenhouse gas that you send out there." That will create a market. It will generate billions of dollars that we can invest in clean technology.
And if nuclear energy can't meet the rigors of the marketplace -- if it's not efficient and if we don't solve those problems -- then that's off the table. And I hope that we can find an energy mix that's going to deliver us from the kinds of problems that we have right now."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transc ...
Obama has the market deciding nuclear strategy and climate change, too. He doesn't call for deeper cuts than L-W, which essentialy is status quo as McCain relates. Neither relate water usage to nuclear or coal. And the 'suppose i'm wrong' thing is another way to highlight postitive aspects of clean technology, so who cares.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:19 am
26 Jan 2008
If we enacted legislation that cut down on air pollution, there would also likely be a drop in medical conditions associated with air pollution, things like asthma, respiratory problems, cancer, and even some cases of premature death and stillbirths.
My post agreed with you.
I define "air pollution" as the traditional culprits: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and so on.
But the thing is, we've made wonderful progress in decreasing these things -- through technology such as catalytic converters.
I do not define CO2 as a pollutant that globally gives the Goreans a way to hurt the poor by limiting progress.
You can see the difference right?
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:21 am
26 Jan 2008
The point I try to make (that you won't get ... whatever) is that even innocuous things like CO2, when out of balance, can become a real problem on a planet that has taken billions of years to create the tenuous equilibriums the support life here.
That's a great hypothesis. I await the scientific proof. In reading the IPCC IV I find none.
All I find are carnival tricks and name calling to distract people from seeing these truths.
In your own post, you have three paragraphs attacking me, and none shoring up your point.
This is the way it's been ever since Al Gore started his tirade.
No proof.
No evidence.
No scientific papers.
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:26 am
27 Jan 2008
But the thing is, we've made wonderful progress in decreasing these things -- through technology such as catalytic converters.
I do not define CO2 as a pollutant that globally gives the Goreans a way to hurt the poor by limiting progress.
You can see the difference right?
We've made some progress in the reduction of some pollution types such as sulfur, but it still causes massive damages and health-related issues even at it's reduced levels.
The thing with CO2 emissions is that they are usually associated with activities that also release other air pollutants, such as sulfur. By reducin' activities that release CO2, we also reduce activities that release other air pollutants.
For example, if we convert over to renewable energy sources to help stop global warming, and begin to shut down coal and oil power plants as a result, not only do we help stop the CO2 emissions, we also stop the other air pollutants.
True, some coal and gas plants have reduced their amount of certain types air pollutants such as sulfur, by a tremendous amount, but even then the amount they still emit can cause massive property damage and health-related issues, 'specially in the long run.
It just makes good economic sense to convert over to cleaner tech. And the sooner it happens, the more money is saved through less damage caused.
Like McCain said, suppose it doesn't exist...then all we've done is given future generations a cleaner and healthier lifestyle (through reductions of related industry pollutants/practices that went along with GHGs). And that's very good for the economy.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:11 am
27 Jan 2008
Then, I can also say that CO2=Prosperity, Economic Growth and Freedom for Poor People.
Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Why not focus on the real pollutants and give up the CO2 lie?
For example, if we convert over to renewable energy sources to help stop global warming, and begin to shut down coal and oil power plants as a result, not only do we help stop the CO2 emissions, we also stop the other air pollutants.
Well, there you go again.
Sure, get rid of the "pollutants" but don't focus on CO2. CO2 is harmless. It does nothing. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Viva la Climate Resistance!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:57 am
27 Jan 2008
Increases in CO2 lead to increased acidification in soil and water. Even if ya don't believe in global warmin', the link between increased CO2 and increased soil and water degredation has been proven.
Sure, it takes alot more CO2 than sulfur to increase acidification by the same amounts, but we're pumpin' enough CO2 into the atmosphere that it has begun to reach those levels.
And what's worse, unlike sulfur (which is heavier than CO2), it's not only a regional issue, but also a global issue (never mind the climate change factor), since CO2 has a wide dispersion rate before it settles down, especially at the scale we emit it at.
The increase in acidification has already begun to adversely affect fisheries, reef systems, wetlands, and certain agricultural areas. Thus effectin' the economy.
Massive amounts of CO2 released over a broad range in a relatively short timespan adversely affects the land and water and air quality, global climate change aside.
It's still bad for the economy, 'specially in the long run.
CO2 is not harmless. If it was harmless, then we'd be able to breathe it just as we do regular air and not be effected. But increase concentrations of CO2 levels high enough in the air, and it still leads to medical problems and decreased air quality.
And that's bad for the economy.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:28 am
27 Jan 2008
You do understand, do you not Jabailo, that several hundreds of millions of the "emerging poor" are likely to find their homes and workplaces under water well before the fortunate residents of Kent begin to feel the pinch?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink