In the Wall Street Journal, Stephen Power summarizes the difference between Obama and McCain on energy and environmental policies this way:
Sen. Obama is pushing a bigger government role in fostering the development of technologies to reduce emissions and alternatives to fossil fuels. Sen. McCain, meanwhile, argues for a more hands-off approach, saying "unintended consequences" can result from wrongheaded interference in the marketplace.
This is the John McCain who mere months ago called for temporarily lifting the federal gas tax, which surely qualifies as wrongheaded interference in the marketplace, though its consequences are easy enough to predict (think: more driving).
Sen. McCain argues that many of the steps [Obama proposes] are little more than subsidies that enrich special interests. ... "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies," he said. "When government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."
This is the John McCain who recently said he wouldn't vote for the Climate Security Act because it didn't have enough pork for nuclear power. The guy who asks about one of the Western world's most conspicuous and expensive instances of central economic planning, "If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?" (Answer: it would cost $4 trillion.) The John McCain who receives considerable largess from some special interests of his own:
He has received over $2 million from oil, coal, utility, auto, chemical and nuclear companies from the 1990 cycle to the first quarter of 2008. In fact, of this total, McCain received nearly two-thirds of it -- $1.2 million -- since he began his presidential quest 18 months ago. And like Senator McCain, these interests and the trade associations they fund oppose the Climate Security Act.
Power notes at the end of his piece that "both candidates' positions have their share of inconsistencies and hedges." And it's true. There are red flags in Obama's record:
Obama, on the other hand, is an Illinois pol. That means he is, by necessity, a little friendlier with coal, ethanol, and nuclear interests than greens might like. Those allegiances led him to vote for the monstrosity that was the Energy Act of 2005, a porkfest that funneled subsidies to all three interest groups (Clinton voted against it). Early last year, he pushed legislation boosting liquid coal. (When greens threw a fit he backed off somewhat, making clear that liquid coal is kosher only if it meets low-carbon fuel standards.) As the NYT exhaustively documents, he gets big campaign contributions from Exelon, a nuke outfit based in Illinois; his campaign adviser David Axelrod once consulted for the company.
Nonetheless, the bulk of the evidence indicates that Obama would be a boon to those who recognize the climate threat.
McCain, by contrast, continues to offer virtually no action -- certainly no votes -- to substantiate his professed concern over climate change. His opposition to government interference in the market is selective at best, opportunistic at worst. He approaches energy with neither principled conservatism nor sincere environmentalism, but a largely cinematic series of poses.
Framing the comparison as one between more or less government is a red herring. Governments are deeply and historically involved in energy markets. They set regulatory and legal parameters. They establish tax rates. They build infrastructure. They conduct diplomacy, negotiate treaties, and invade Middle Eastern countries.
Governments always and already shape energy markets. The question is how to do it better. Obama has introduced a credible, detailed approach. He evinces commitment to thinking the problem through, interest in the details, and a level of seriousness that is nowhere evident in McCain. That's the relevant comparison.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:09 am
09 Jun 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:58 am
09 Jun 2008
The point is that McCain wants to create energy independence, push alternatives, make energy cleaner and reduce waste. The fact that he is not willing to force feed particular technologies or impose draconian taxes on the populace who cannot respond in any meaningful way seems to speak more to common sense.
The Democrats are left with the detritus of a failed dictatorial energy plan already. The path to cutting CO2 is fairly simple. We can do it now if we could shut down the most egregiously old coal plants and replace them with Clean Coal. Yes, I know you want to get rid of coal entirely, but a sensible plan might be to get rid of Dirty Coal first, but make sure we have the replacement energy from Clean Coal, and then spend 30 years getting our new technologies like wind, solar, hydrogen into place without rushing around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:10 am
09 Jun 2008
While that sentiment is nice, if a bill like this came up in Congress, do ya honestly believe that the Republicans in general would support it?
'Cause I get the feeling that they'd just say that implementation of clean/filter technology on older coal plants would just raise energy prices and be an unfair burden on taxpayers.
In other words, they'd label it a draconian tax just like they have every other time clean air/technology was implemented.
Remember the whole low-sulfur coal debate back in the 1970's?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:30 am
09 Jun 2008
Yes, because bills "like that" have come up in state government to build clean coal plants and they've been shot down by the Greens.
It's known that a few very, very bad Dirty Coal plants are producing nearly half if not more of the CO2. Instead of having a gazillion different plans for charging home owners for their measley puffs of dioxide, we can take care of Kyoto in one fell swoop -- get rid of Dirty Coal...and the fastest way to do it is with Clean Coal.
And we don't have to replace every plant -- it's a few plants, some very, very large, that have to go. After that we're halfway there...
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 12:10 pm
09 Jun 2008
That's all very well, but can you point to a functioning clean coal power station anywhere. Or for that matter a functioning prototype - functioning or planned? Here in Victoria, Australia the power company's definition of clean coal is taking extra dirty brown coal and treating it so it is only as polluting as black coal. The definition of 'clean coal' seems to be very loose. They admit that the cost of making any coal truly clean - whether brown or black - is prohibitively expensive. What is the total emissions of the plants that you are suggesting be replaced? What proportion of emissions do they account for? What will the emissions be of the plants that you suggest they be replaced with. What will the net emissions savings be. And what will the electricity cost be compared to solar thermal, geothermal, wind or other alternatives.
Yes, get rid of the most polluting generators first, but clean coal plants are by no means the best replacement.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:14 pm
09 Jun 2008
That's all very well, but can you point to a functioning clean coal power station anywhere. Or for that matter a functioning prototype - functioning or planned?
As I mentioned, something like 50% of all CO2 generated currently is the product of a few really, bad dirty coal plants. So in that sense, all the remaining, currently operating plants, which aren't egregiously dirty, are "Clean" or "Cleaner". I'm simply saying we have developed accretive technologies which properly deployed have reduced pollution and emissions for standard coal plants.
At worst, if we replaced the egregious Dirty coal plants with brand new Regular coal plants -- we'd still meet Kyoto. The newer Real Clean plants,
http://www.zerogen.com.au/environmental/impact
we will assume be at least as clean as current regular Cleaner plants and all the enhancements are gravy.
Yes, it's treading water...but it gets us out of the CO2 frying pan really fast, and it gives us a path to further reductions, and we can really let the market work the new technologies into the system instead of wasting a lot of tax money on hasty "injection" programs that will end up not doing anyone a lick of good.
Permalink
oregonj Posted 3:09 pm
09 Jun 2008
Too bad, though, that less dirty than dirtiest is still very dirty. All of these coal plants create more than 1800 pounds of CO2 per mWH generated, by far the dirtiest source of electricity generated in this country.
The equation is COAL = HIGH GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 8:59 pm
09 Jun 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:12 am
10 Jun 2008
50 Dirtiest U.S. Power Plants Produce Little Power, Much Pollution
The American electric utility industry has a dirty secret: The 50 dirtiest among the nation's 359 largest power plants generate as little as 14 percent of the electric power - but account for a disproportionately large share of pollution emissions across four major categories: up to 50 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 42 percent of mercury, 40 percent of nitrogen oxides, and 35 percent of carbon dioxide pollution, according to a major new report from the nonprofit and nonpartisan Environmental Integrity Project (EIP).
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:17 am
10 Jun 2008
Too bad, though, that less dirty than dirtiest is still very dirty
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs/2007%20Dirty%2 ...
Large coal plants equipped with scrubbers have shown that clean power is achievable. For example, Allegheny Energy's Conemaugh plant in Pennsylvania and Harrison plant in West Virginia, and Dominion's Mount Storm plant in West Virginia, all have large coal-fired units equipped with wet limestone scrubbers. These plants are achieving emission rates of approximately one pound per MWh, well below the top 50 plants' 21 pounds per MWh average.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:35 am
10 Jun 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
oregonj Posted 3:19 am
10 Jun 2008
What a nice touch. I cite facts about rates of CO2 pollution - which has not, and cannot, be cleaned up. And you respond, without citing which pollutant you are addressing, with a quote from page 10 that discusses SO2 pollution, which everyone agrees has and can be cleaned up.
No wonder the coal and utility companies have no credibility in this argument. They have a lot of resources to sell the fantasy mantra of "clean coal" - but they lack credibility on the CO2 arguments, and with this kind of deception it should continue to sink further.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:01 am
11 Jun 2008
Question: Was there a provision in these "bills" that would've dismantled the older coal plants once the newer ones were online?
Or was it just a bill to allow new coal plants while still keeping the old ones operative?
Permalink