McCain is not the candidate of change

Arizona senator says no to Boxer-L-W without giga-subsidies for nukes 6

McCain said last night that he is the candidate of change. How is billions of dollars in subsidies to build hundreds of nuclear power plants "change"?

Here is everything you need to know about McCain's understanding of both energy and climate issues: He doesn't care enough about the climate to support even a so-so bill like Boxer-Lieberman-Warner unless there are giga-subsidies for nukes beyond the $100 billion or so the industry has received to date.

Q: Can you tell us your position on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill?

John McCain: Yeah. I still have not seen in the Warner-Lieberman bill the emphasis and the way to facilitate nuclear power into active operation and use in the United States of America. That's my concern about Warner-Lieberman. And I feel that nuclear power is such a vital aspect of any real meaningful action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions that I have withheld support for it, because I really want to see, and I am told there will be some amendments on the floor, that will dramatically increase the nuclear component of it. So far, it's not enough for me.

Nuclear is, right now, among the most expensive zero-carbon options, with new generation coming in at $6,000-8,000 per kilowatt, which would generate electricity for $0.15 a kilowatt hour, which is about 50 percent higher than current U.S. electricity prices (see here).

A mature technology, with 20 percent market share and $100 billion in subsidies since 1948 whose liability in case of a major accident is limited by federal law (with the full liability burden falling on taxpayers) hardly deserves more subsidies.

In his big April 2007 speech on energy policy, McCain said, "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?" Why can't we? Wrong question, Senator. The right question is, why would we?

As I've explained, such a McCain energy policy would require building some 500-700 nuclear power plants by mid-century in this country alone, and at least five waste repositories the size of Yucca Mountain, at a total cost of some $4 trillion.

We could get far more carbon savings at a far lower cost by putting that money towards efficiency and renewables.

We need a president who understands both energy and climate policy. That would not seem to be the senator from Arizona.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Trakar Posted 12:28 am
    05 Jun 2008

    So,...there are no Green Candidates?Hard to tell about Obama, as he seems to say whatever he thinks the group he is speaking to wants to hear, and seems willing to contradict it five minutes later when questioned about it by the press.
    McCain appears to have some green leanings but they are trapped beneath a lot of corporate interests and the need to pander to a far right, anti-science base.
    That leaves....?

    Permalink

  2. MAD MAC Posted 5:10 am
    05 Jun 2008

    Anybody who thinks solar and wind turbines are............ more efficient than nuclear energy is completely misinformed. It's just not true.
    The reason the green movement hates nuclear is the concern about safety and waste. Fair concerns, but let's not lie about efficiencies in the arguement.

    Victory in Pattani

    Permalink

  3. starsky Posted 6:27 am
    05 Jun 2008

    Interesting read re: Greenness of Dem's and Rep'sWe recently came across an interesting survey that revealed the green views and habits of Democrats and Republicans. Apparently, Rep's and Dem's have differing views but in their actions they are actually quite similar.

    http://sattlerclothing.com/blog/2008/06/05/republican-or- ...

    Permalink

  4. GRLCowan's avatar

    GRLCowan Posted 7:03 am
    05 Jun 2008

    The reasonThe reason the green movement hates nuclear is the concern about safety and waste. Fair concerns ...
    They are definitely not fair concerns. The appear to be rationalizations of a hatred that is actually based on fossil fuel interest. When it's their own posteriors on the line, green movers seem to understand that nuclear energy is safe and clean; so for instance Greenpeace contractors quietly get about the Arctic on a nuclear icebreaker when they could insist on a diesel.
    --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996

    http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

    Permalink

  5. MAD MAC Posted 8:10 pm
    17 Jun 2008

    Not in Germany"When it's their own posteriors on the line, green movers seem to understand that nuclear energy is safe and clean"
    In Germany the Greens, when they formed part of the governing coalition, insisted that all nuclear power plants be decommissioned. That is happening now while Germany constructs the largest coal fired power plant ever that will completely eliminate their CO2 gains.

    Victory in Pattani

    Permalink

  6. 220vBrain Posted 2:58 am
    20 Aug 2008

    CHANGE? what change?If you want change, then try NOT electing,or re-electing any of the same carbon copied politicans time after time. How about demanding that the 230 year dominating two party system of the USA be abolished! How about sending every scumbag politican on capital hill packing. Let's have a real change,for once, and clean house!

    Our current system of BIG,corrupted, bald face lying government is broken. It can't be fixed or saved. It must be euthanized...DON'T VOTE!
    McCain or Obama...neither is an agent of anything, but, more of them same old Washington D.C cronism,corruption and plutocracy.
    Let's give them a 21st century Boston Tea Party they will never forget!  DON'T VOTE!

    Permalink

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?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement