McCain's big speech on energy and climate

A mixed bag 8

John McCain gave a major speech today in which he said that energy dependence and global warming are major threats to America's future that urgently need to be addressed.

The policy section started off with this great bit:

Energy efficiency by using improved technology and practicing sensible habits in our homes, businesses and automobiles is a big part of the answer, and is something we can achieve right now. And new advances will make conservation an ever more important part of the solution. Improved light bulbs can use much less energy; smart grid technology can help homeowners and businesses lower their energy use, and breakthroughs in high tech materials can greatly improve fuel efficiency in the transportation sector. We need to dispel the image of conservation that entails shivering in cold rooms, reading by candlelight, and lower productivity.

After that it drifted into the usual grab bag of ethanol (which you'll recall he used to oppose), nuclear, and cap-and-trade.

Not that long ago I would have called this an unusually bold and progressive plan for a Republican, but Schwarzenegger and a cadre of green Republican governors and mayors across the country have raised the bar. I will say that at the presidential level, when it comes to climate and energy, McCain's about the best you can do.

Of course, it didn't help his cause when the very same day it was announced that former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger has "endorsed John McCain for President and will advise his campaign on energy and national security issues." Schlesinger is a long-time global warming skeptic with deep ties to dirty energy industries. Which just goes to show: the individual characteristics and positions of the nominee are not as important as the political infrastructure they bring into office with them, and a McCain victory will mean the continuing dominance of the Republican infrastructure, for better or worse.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 10:00 am
    23 Apr 2007

    At least he knows about peak oilOn the (somewhat) positive side, Schlesinger is aware of peak oil and is big on energy security. More at  The Guardian and Washington Times.
    Has anybody run across recent statements by Schlesinger on global warming? In the past, I know that global warming was not (ahem) one of Schlesinger's strong points. However the smarter Republicans are gradually signing on. Even Exxon now  agrees that global warming is real and it's mostly caused by human activity.  

    Bart


    Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

  2. GreyFlcn Posted 10:44 am
    23 Apr 2007

    O RLY?Exxon now agrees



    that global warming is real

    and it's mostly caused by human activity.


    Looked around a little bit, but all I could find was that the first point.
    _
    Although incidentally I was able to find Kerry browbeating Gingrich into admitting Inhofe is way off base.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe ...

    Permalink

  3. Bart Anderson's avatar

    Bart Anderson Posted 1:33 pm
    23 Apr 2007

    Exxon change of heartStuart Staniford at The Oil Drum had more about Exxon's "change of heart" during a conference call for bloggers

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245
    As you note, GreyFlcn, this didn't get much coverage. It would be good to have it followed up.

    Bart


    Energy Bulletin

    Permalink

  4. wacki Posted 2:07 pm
    23 Apr 2007

    What do you mean?After that it drifted into the usual grab bag of ethanol (which you'll recall he used to oppose), nuclear, and cap-and-trade.
    You can't fault him for ethanol.  He was honest in the last election and we ended up with bush as prez.    Not sure what you mean by the grab bag of nuclear though.  Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.

    Permalink

  5. GreyFlcn Posted 2:12 am
    24 Apr 2007

    Nuclear? Maybe.re: wacki

    Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.
    It might.
    Thats all assuming renewables don't reach a tipping point to be able to effectively provide baseload by 2015.
    _
    Concentrating Solar Power, backed up by either molten salt, or biogas currently already makes a cost effective challenge to Nuclear.
    Geothermal finally seems to be picking up, despite the GOP's attempts to kill it.

    http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206

    http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1001

    http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to_wheels ...

    http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=1723 ...

    http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/965

    http://www.rasertech.com/media/powerblog/2007/03/us-senat ...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406171041 ...
    And the advancement of Direct Carbon Fuel Cells, and BioCharcoal offer the possibility to yield 10x the raw energy of cellulosic ethanol from the same biomass in electric form.

    (Or at very worst 4x the energy if we just burn BioCharcoal in existing coal facilities)
    _
    Not to mention, there's also always the spectre of Storage.
    UltraCapacitors could come down in price, mixed with ANY inexepensive/reliable renewable.
    Or we might just consider that we like pumped hydro all the sudden and solve it quick and simple.
    _
    Frankly, I don't like Nuclear simply because:



    It's Full Cost including subsidies and externalities is way too expensive

    The externalities and liabilities make it an unsustainable tax burden

    It's opportunity cost is way too high

    With a buildup speed thats so slow, it'd need to get built recklessly fast to keep up with world demand.

    We aren't far off from not needing it

    Permalink

  6. GreyFlcn Posted 2:38 am
    24 Apr 2007

    Not to mentionNevada might just as well take their current position on the waste by the supposed new opening data for Yucca Mountain in 2017.
    Screw your waste and the horse it rode in on.  You made it?  You keep it.  We don't want it.
    Besides which, even though the storage capacity of Yucca Mountain has more area to hold it.
    DOE's already exceeded the ammount of waste agreed upon through the original legistlation.
    Yucca Mountain has essentially closed operations for now waiting on legistlation from the GOP to attempt to forcefeed Nevada as much waste as it can carry.

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-09-01.asp ...
    Not to mention, the water table fraud

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/full/4344 ...
    _
    And nuclear isn't looking too rosy elsewhere.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1479527, ...

    http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/34718.php?contentType=4& ...

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/25/nuclear.plant/index.html ...

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,430164,00.html ...

    http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyI ...
    _
    Lastly, Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majoriety Leader might toss a monkey wrench in things :)

    Permalink

  7. GreyFlcn Posted 2:47 am
    24 Apr 2007

    More DramaLol, more Yucca Mountain drama

    http://www.kxnt.com/pages/220333.php?contentType=4&co ...
    Like said, Nevada is none too happy about Yucca, and are going to fight against it every step of the way.

    Permalink

  8. GreyFlcn Posted 3:29 am
    24 Apr 2007

    AlthoughYou have to admit, the doublespeak is funny
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazdKO1IHlg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

    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