My latest post on The Nation is up, asking: Will the media give McCain a free ride on climate?
I know there's a sense out there that because McCain is relatively sane on climate, this race might pose the opportunity to have a serious discussion of the issue. But my fear is the opposite: that because the candidates (seem to) agree on the issue, the media will ignore it, focusing instead on areas where there's controversy.
That's basically what happened in 2000, as my post points out. Will it happen again? If there's a difference, it's that this year, unlike in 2000, there's an online community that's energized on the climate issue. (Blogs change everything!©) Should be interesting to watch.
(I was on Laura Flanders' Air America radio show making the same point today -- I'll put a link up when I have one.)
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
Jones Posted 4:21 am
07 Feb 2008
Now, I know that the "straight talk express" has gone a bit wobbly at times, and I definitely have misgivings about McCain on several points. But something about the way he said it seemed really genuine and non-politicianesque. In the end, I might not like the specific way he addresses the issue, and we don't know how he'll handle his party/"stakeholders"; but I'm pretty surehe won't pull a Bush.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:02 am
07 Feb 2008
Once again, another Grist-like argument that begins with a straw man and ends with speculation.
This article says zilch about McCain. Two-thirds of it is about Bush and the presumption is that if Bush does blah, then McCain does blah.
Spurious at best. The phrase used is "obstructionism on climate". Sounds impressive..but what does it mean?
Bush clearly stated reasons for not signing various "international accords" that China and India refused to sign. But at the same time he committed to reducing CO2 by 50% with our European allies.
In short, this is the usual filtering and distortion about Bush that Grist has been selling from day one. Now they have a new target, McCain and they can't wait to play with their new toy.
jabailo.johnmccain.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:49 am
07 Feb 2008
When did he say that? And what was his timeline and strategy to do so? The Europeans want to cut back their GHGs by usin' legislation and cap and trade. I sincerely doubt that the Bushy would be willin' to do the same, so how he could achieve those cuts in the same timeframe as the Europeans is beyond me.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:02 pm
07 Feb 2008
When did he say that? And what was his timeline and strategy to do so?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092908/
jabailo.johnmccain.com
Permalink
greenthinker Posted 1:32 am
08 Feb 2008
"Group of Eight leaders on Thursday agreed on a plan calling for "substantial cuts" to greenhouse gas emissions, but the compromise with President Bush left France's leader wishing a stronger stand had been taken.
The leaders failed to overcome U.S. resistance to committing to specific numerical targets to curb global warming, but did refer to the European Union goal of cutting emissions by 50 percent by 2050."
Bush agreed to substantial cuts (whatever that means) but would not agree to a numerical target. Hence, he did not agree to a 50% reduction by 2050, the EU did.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:11 am
08 Feb 2008
Look, agree or agree in principle or accept.
The bottom line is
a) can it be done
b) is it being done
I would rather have a realistic person who is working towards doing what we can (mccain, bush) rather than a grandstander who wants "international accords" (that don't include the Earth's two biggest countries) or edicts.
jabailo.johnmccain.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:26 am
08 Feb 2008
b) is it being done
Can it be done- yes.
Is it being done- yes...in other countries. Not in America, at least, not quickly enough. And nearly all efforts in America are due to pressure by eco-groups and some private industry. No/little government action. The countries with the largest reductions use government action. It's pretty fruitless otherwise.
Those "international accords" are the reason why Europeans are reducin' their CO2 at such a fairly good pace overall.
Serously, what has Bush done that has in any way intentionally reducded CO2 emissions by any great amount? Nothin' comes to my mind.
Permalink