McCain's climate plan

Republican candidate’s climate proposals better than expected but still behind the curve 8

John McCainOn Monday, John McCain will deliver a speech on climate change from Portland, Oregon. In it he will lay out the framework for climate policy under a McCain administration. After a primary spent shoring up his credentials among the Republican base, this is the beginning of his general election strategy: Operation I'm Not Bush.

(One important note: the speech is not on energy. McCain will be delivering a major speech on energy in a few weeks, probably early June, wherein he will lay out specific thoughts and policies on coal, nuclear power, renewables, etc. Today is all about climate policy.)

It comes as no surprise that the focus is on a cap-and-trade program, something McCain has supported for five years. In fact, there is virtually no mention of any emission reduction policies outside of cap-and-trade -- no efficiency or fuel economy mandates, no electrical utility decoupling, no mention of public transit. McCain obviously retains his conservative allergy to regulation and public spending. There is some discussion of funding research and incentivizing market deployment of new technology, but the details are tantalizingly vague. Perhaps they'll be fleshed out in the energy speech.

One area where McCain deserves big kudos: He devotes a good chunk of his speech and his policy plan to adaptation, something that's been too far under the radar in climate discussions. Substantial impacts from climate change are inevitable, and it's high time the federal gov't got serious about coordinating and funding local efforts to prepare.

As for the cap-and-trade program itself, McCain's basic targets and mechanisms are roughly in line with what others have proposed. He would aim for 1990 emission levels by 2020, and 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. That long-term target falls short of the "80 percent by 2050" recommended by the IPCC and beloved of climate activists, but the short-term target is roughly in line with what's offered in the Lieberman-Warner bill and Barack Obama's plan.

It's the cost-control measures that are sure to be controversial. McCain does not include the much-maligned "safety valve," whereby carbon prices cannot exceed a pre-set cap. He does, however, propose to allow unlimited use of domestic and international carbon offsets for compliance with the cap, at least initially. He would also give away rather than auction a substantial portion of the original pollution permits. (The level of compliance permitted via offsets and the number of permits given away will both decline over time, on a schedule determined by the Climate Change Credit Corporation, the public-private agency McCain proposes to oversee the program.)

As for permit allocation, the arguments for 100 percent auction are well-trod. But the compliance-via-offsets issue hasn't been nearly as hashed over. On the positive side, it would create a means for picking low-hanging carbon fruit outside the sectors covered by the program, ensuring low compliance costs in the early stages. On the negative side, for that very reason the massive changes needed in the American economy and infrastructure will be put off, and dirty coal plants may remain economical long enough for a new round to get built. (I'm going to explore the offsets question in a separate post.)

Finally, McCain takes an entirely sensible line on international negotiations, pledging to lead the post-Kyoto UN process and offer incentives to sweeten the pot for China and India to sign on. He also says that in the event they will not sign on, he'll support trade mechanisms that would penalize them for the carbon content of their exports (something Obama also supports). However, his policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin assures me -- contra what he implied earlier this year -- that McCain will implement mandatory caps in the U.S., regardless of whether China and India follow suit.

So what's the overall verdict? I'll explore the plan more in coming days, but my initial reaction is that it's better than expected, somewhat short of Lieberman-Warner, and far short of what Obama has proposed. It should comfort us that a McCain presidency will mean real action on climate change, not the shell game Bush is engaged in. But it's hard to see how McCain can claim the allegiance of voters who rank climate change as a top concern. He's still behind the curve.

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

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. WesleyJoseph Posted 4:24 pm
    11 May 2008

    Wayyy behind the curve...Let's be honest here, this man, John McCain, is not serious about the environment, climate change, or a modern energy infrastructural change that is badly needed.

    Permalink

  2. hapa's avatar

    hapa Posted 6:22 pm
    11 May 2008

    let him talkto prove it was safe for pedestrians, he marched through the streets of baghdad in full jacket, protected by soldiers and helicopter gunships. now he will present his climate plan that proves only mild corrections are needed to deal with emissions and consequences. good for him, he wows the crowd.
    8 million households use heating oil. the last winter put most of them on the edge of their money and oil prices might double by the end of the year. there's no way those people can go green before then with the money they have, or by other means.
    li'l help, senator?

    economy's wrecked, climate's melting, oil's scarce, green's the way out.

    Permalink

  3. GreyFlcn Posted 10:07 pm
    11 May 2008

    As mentioned previouslyMcCain's RNC chairman just quit due to corruption ties.

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/18 ...
    He also happens the top executive of the DCI group.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tech_Central_S ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at0T7Fi5l_I

    ExxonMobil's Lobbying firm

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil#Lob ...

    -

    And is tied to fake-grassroots spin doctoring for RJ Reynolds Tobacco.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ramhurst

    -

    Even if McCain offered the best climate plan ever, I wouldn't hope for 2 seconds that he'd actually implement it.

    -

    They are after-all, only campaign promises.

    Permalink

  4. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 11:26 pm
    11 May 2008

    DetailsIt sounds like L-W is indeed, the train, as the Climate Change Credit Corp. is their vehicle as well.  Note also that L-W does put a lot of resources towards adaptation, even if it hasn't gotten as much media attention.

    Permalink

  5. C Hernick Posted 3:02 am
    12 May 2008

    Check factsBehind the curve? McCain is one of the few senators that has been working on this issue for years. See the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act of 2003.

    Permalink

  6. davedenali Posted 4:39 am
    12 May 2008

    Much too littleIn a party that made James ("global warming is a hoax") Inhofe the Chair of the Senate Environment Committee, it's easy to look good by comparison.  But McCain's promises are not nearly enough.  He's committing to 60 percent reductions when NASA global warming expert James Hansen warns that even 80 percent may not be enough.  McCain's allowance for satisfying the law through offsets allows for accounting tricks instead of real reductions.  As Al Gore warned in his Nobel Speech, we are facing a planetary emergency.  We can no longer allow industry lobbyists and the Republican Party leadership to hold sway.  Mr. McCain and his 25 percent Senate environmental record and his fellow Republican legislators need to be shown the door.  They've done far too much damage as is.

    Permalink

  7. beerguzzlinotter Posted 11:02 pm
    12 May 2008

    Nuclear EnergyWhat McCain has in his pocket to help protect the climate is nuclear energy.  Read up on the benefits towards diminishing carbon output.  Our carbon output would be ridiculously tiny v. the carbon output of power sources we are relying on today.  It is time environmentalists did some reading on nuclear energy and woke up to the realization it is the only energy source powerful and non polluting enough to save the planet!  The technology for harnessing the sun and the wind's energy is so far behind.  We need change now before it is too late, if it is not already.  Now if we could just convince Obama of this then we could really be leading a movement of change...

    Permalink

  8. conservationreport Posted 2:23 am
    13 May 2008

    Nuclear energy is not a magic bulletNuclear energy is not our savior.  In fact, I believe it is the lazy man's weapon to quench our energy needs and prevent environmental degradation.  Environmentalists rightly approach nuclear energy with caution.
    First, nuclear power plants are susceptible to droughts since large amounts of water are needed for cooling.  Droughts can force nuclear plants to shut down.
    (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/24/6580/)  
    Additionally, nuclear energy relies on nonrenewable resources that must be extracted just like oil and storing nuclear waste is controversial and seems impossible.  Electricity produced by nuclear reactors is expensive too.
    (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/182/story/358384.html)
    Energy from the sun and wind are not far behind.  In fact, wind energy alone has the possibility of replacing the current output of energy from nuclear sources.  However, I believe nuclear energy certainly should be part of a diverse energy portfolio but most importantly, we must modernize, rehabilitate, and upgrade the electricity transmission grid.  We also must take a hard look at consumption and understand since we are bound by the Entropy Law that infinite growth is not possible.  In fact, I believe the first two laws of thermodynamics should be preached ad nauseum.
    (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/wind_myths.pdf  http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN124750402008051 ... and http://www.foet.org/books/entropy.html)
    I believe nonrenewable resources must be conservatively or strategically consumed.  For example, personal vehicles should be smaller.  Whether crude oil or uranium, nonrenewable fuel sources should be consumed wisely and renewable sources should be the forefront of energy production when possible.
    We need well thought holistic solutions not magic bullets.
    http://www.conservationreport.com/

    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