Depends on the definition of the word 'mandatory'

John McCain doesn’t appear to understand his own emissions plan 2

Muckraker: Grist on Politics

Also from John McCain's press conference this morning, the senator from Arizona once again makes it clear that he doesn't really understand cap-and-trade:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

Which is, of course, completely out of line with his own proposal for a cap-and-trade scheme, both the plan he proposed with Joe Lieberman last year and his own presidential plan, released last month. They both would, by nature, be mandatory -- hence the "cap" in the name. This isn't the first time McCain has misunderstood his own policy on cap-and-trade. In the Republican debate in Florida in January, he also denied that his cap-and-trade program included a mandatory cap on carbon.

He also appeared confused about the definition of cap-and-trade in an interview with Greenwire ($ub req'd):

It's not quote mandatory caps. It's cap-and-trade, OK. It's not mandatory caps to start with. It's cap-and-trade. That's very different. OK, because that's a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. So please portray it as cap-and-trade. That's the way I call it.

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. brownbat Posted 3:41 am
    23 Jun 2008

    Mandatory

    Looks like he was just emphasizing that trading allows some to exceed their individual caps.

    I can kinda see what you're going for, but you have to read McCain pretty uncharitably to make him look that confused. I was really hoping for more of a smoking gun here.

  2. MonikaM Posted 1:33 am
    30 Jun 2008

    and the problem is...?

    McCain seems to understand it very well; he is pointing out the difference between using the efficiency of the free market as opposed to the heavy hand of government. A cap is set that you can exceed...you just have to pay. You come in below the cap, you get money. Reward the innovative, punish the lazy, indifferent or unable. What is so hard to understand about that? If there were a "mandatory" cap that the government did not allow anyone to exceed...how would they punish companies that did went(and many inevitably would go) above the cap anyways...they would fine them!

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement