Originally posted at the Think Progress Wonk Room.
Newsweek's cover story on the presidential candidates and global warming quotes UC Berkeley energy professor Dan Kammen, a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)'s presidential campaign:
It's unusual to have a Republican candidate who openly disagrees with the Bush administration on the need for capping carbon emissions. There's more disagreement with the current administration than with each other.
The idea that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is closer to the Democratic candidates running for president than he is to the president is popular with the political elite. Joe Klein similarly said "McCain's distance from George W. Bush seems greater than from the Democrats" on foreign policy issues like global warming. What McCain says he wants to do about global warming certainly sounds better than what the Bush administration has accomplished.
A look at the facts paints a different picture:
- Like Bush, McCain's global warming talk is good -- both speaking in generalities about needing to be "good stewards" and get "serious" about climate change.
- Like Bush, Candidate McCain is drenched in ties to Big Oil -- McCain's campaign is run by lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and energy companies, and McCain has repeatedly blocked attempts to roll back subsidies for Big Oil.
- Like Bush, McCain uses China and India as an excuse for inaction -- When asked about global warming policy, both Sen. McCain and Bush say that India and China have to participate in a global agreement -- ignoring the fact that unlike the United States, both countries are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, the rest of the industrialized world is not making excuses -- they've set to work.
McCain shares much with Bush. McCain's one significant difference, played up by his supporters, is his call for a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions. But McCain's vision of how such a system would work -- despite the words of Kammen and Klein -- is starkly different from that of the Democratic candidates. There are three core guidelines by which global warming policy should be judged:
- Does it meet scientific principles?
- Does it make polluters pay?
- Does it promote social equity?
Sen. Clinton has released a detailed global warming plan, as has Sen. Obama. Both follow the above guidelines, calling for 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, supporting 100% auction of pollution allowances, and prioritizing investment in green jobs and helping low-income households.
On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain's people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy: "He wants to see the use of nukes."
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Comments
View as Threaded
GreyFlcn Posted 10:24 am
07 Apr 2008
"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be
overturned."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
This of course means, that McCain is saying that abortions should be made into a federal crime.
Thats the type of thing that would make Hillary voters decide to vote for Barrack, just to avoid McCain getting office.
Permalink
jcalabro Posted 11:10 am
07 Apr 2008
Permalink
human power Posted 12:39 pm
07 Apr 2008
Also, carbon taxes do not require the polluters to pay; all costs are passed on. True, efficient polluters will find larger margins, but all will continue the march into the abyss.
And how could anyone confuse cap and trade with a socially equitable solution to climate change? It will allow wealthy individuals to emit unlimited GHGs while only restricting the least wealthy 75%. How about real equity for a change? Personal quotas for liquid fuel and grid power could be implemented today and quotas on the carbon emissions of other consumer goods could be in place in less than a decade. Under non-tradable quotas we will all share the burden of managing the rate of climate change together.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:13 pm
07 Apr 2008
As much as I agree with ya in general, it should be pointed out that the statement isn't entirely true. He did co-author one of the first bills that would've capped emissions on GHGs, had it actually passed.
Permalink
kammen Posted 4:33 am
08 Apr 2008
In California, for example, we have climate policies on the books that call for a ~ 25% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (AB32), and 80% reductions by 2050 (Executive Order 3-05). These are great words, and the politicians who penned them are truly to be commended, but we must make good on these targets.
The first step for action is having a plan, and in this respect I give California, the northeast/mid-Atlantic climate climate coalition, and the exciting, emerging, plan for the upper-Midwest.
This is where I have to disagree with Brad.
There is no doubt that McCain's 'green credentials' can be questioned. Nevertheless,
he has shown a willingness to talk about and
even work on significant (even if insufficient) legislation. As a result, I can't disagree more with the comment:
* Like Bush, McCain's global warming talk is good -- both speaking in generalities about needing to be "good stewards" and get "serious" about climate change.
There has been absolutely no useful language from President Bush on this topic. His international 'forum' on climate is even termed, within the administration, the 'dirty dozen' (well, dirty
11, with Australia defecting).
So, no question, Brad is right that McCain has both been vague and has not gone as far as is needed. He is, however, part of a conversation that is far more enlightened that we have seen in federal office in recent times. That is a start.
Dan Kammen
Professor, Energy and Resources Group, University of California,
Berkeley
Permalink
mtssea Posted 6:34 am
08 Apr 2008
I came up with this independently of that, but as a 100% leftist enviro wacko I will still vote McCain over Hillary if Obama isn't on the ticket. I'm am more sick & tired of the DYNASTY - this Anti-American, Anti-Democratci, Anti-Founding Fathers BS we are faced with: the Hatfields / McCoys Dynasty Struggle (i.e. Bush or Clinton for he last 32 years and possibly 36 to 40 years). This is far worse than ANOTHER dumbass fascist (McCain) running us into the ground for another 4 years.
None of your dream legislation (even Obamas') is going to do anything anyway for climate change when you don't forever end coal, go 100% toward renewable energy, phase out the oil, reign in the oil & war company profits, and combine it with so much other green & enviro legislation it would even make Nader & Kucinich spin.
And just quit talking about Nader - he shot himself in the foot, Gore through the heart, and America and the world through the head in 2000. He put Bush in office and for what - to prove that Gore was the same as Bush- COME THE F$#@ ON! He would've had SERIOUS footing in 2004 if he didn't run the FL election into the ground in 2000 and I will NEVER forgive him for it. Especially in the face of Obama now...give the kid a break, he can at least give an hour speech without notes. At least he's remotely inspiring and can begin working us back to a place where Nader, Kucinich, et al look reasonable instead of like goth kids at the prom. Slap yourself across the face Nader, and just keep pushing us domestically like you've done. You're just not presidential material now.
I will vote for my opponent (McCain) before Dynasty (Hillary)...and I will encourage anyone I know to do the same.
Kevin Caldwell
Marshall NC
Permalink