McCain speech reactions

Enviros respond to McCain's new climate plan

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 1:23 PM on 12 May 2008

Muckraker: Grist on Politics John McCain unveiled his plans to address global warming in a speech Monday afternoon in Portland, Ore. The candidate called climate change a "test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next," and called for a cap-and-trade system to drastically reduce the country's greenhouse-gas emissions.

John McCain.

Photo: Matthew Chastain Wright

"Whether we call it 'climate change' or 'global warming,' in the end we're all left with the same set of facts," McCain told an audience gathered at a Vestas wind-energy training facility. "The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington."

Many environmental leaders were glad to hear the GOP candidate talking specifics on climate action, but still had criticism for the particulars of his plan.

Jeremy Symons, director of the National Wildlife Federation's climate-change campaign, was one of the more positive voices from the environmental community. "It's not just a policy platform. He is building a case around the central idea he mentions that time is short and the dangers are great," Symons said. "We are entering the post-Bush era of climate politics."

In his speech, McCain called for a series of targets for reducing carbon emissions, starting with a goal of reducing emissions to 2005 levels by 2012 and working toward a 60 percent drop below 1990 levels by the year 2050. While Symons noted that the final emissions cap is lower than the 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 that's called for by NWF, other environmental groups, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he was optimistic that McCain did indicate "new flexibility" in this and other policy areas. He noted that the senator called for "at least" 60 percent reductions, and indicated that an increasing portion of carbon credits could be allotted by auction, which is an element of a cap-and-trade plan that many environmental groups have called for.

"There aren't a lot of shut doors here," said Symons. "This is a very compelling statement about why we need to act urgently, and that is good news for everyone that we have candidates from both parties that are going to be making that case."

But others found the speech to be a mere rehashing of the climate policy McCain has supported for quite some time, dating back to 2003 when he first introduced the Climate Stewardship Act with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

"To his credit, Sen. McCain wants to do something serious about global warming, but his proposal falls far short of what the science says we need to do today," said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski in a written statement. "He has not substantively improved his plan over the bill he introduced years ago -- legislation that the science now shows is out of date."

David Hamilton, director of the global warming and energy program at the Sierra Club, echoed that sentiment. As he told Grist, "We've moved a long ways since then, and we now know that cap-and-trade means very different things to different people." Hamilton noted that McCain left open a lot of questions because he was vague on issues like how carbon credits would be allocated in his cap-and-trade scheme and what percentage of emissions reductions could be achieved through the purchase of offsets. "This is a fundamental issue of how much polluters are going to assume the burden, and how much are we going to put that burden on the taxpayers," said Hamilton.

Hamilton's boss, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, was more harsh: "Like President Bush, McCain's policies on global warming offer more of the same," Pope said in a statement. This seems like a bit of stretch, as Bush has stubbornly refused to put any mandatory constraints on carbon emissions, while McCain is proposing a set of specific carbon caps that aren't all that far from those of the Democratic presidential candidates.

In the speech, McCain also talked up his belief that nuclear power is "one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable" energy sources, another issue that puts him at odds with many environmental groups -- and with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who's shepherding climate legislation through the Senate.

"If you do it his way with nukes, it is guaranteed to jack energy bills," said Hamilton. "The cost of nuclear power has gone through the roof, and you have to be nuts to bank a wholesale change of our energy system on nukes."

But Symons of NWF notes that rather than calling for nuclear subsidies -- which McCain has done repeatedly in the past -- in this speech he instead focused on the natural market incentives for nuclear in a cap-and-trade plan, and talked more about putting additional resources into safety at nuclear plants, areas where he might be able to find more common ground with enviros.

One group clearly enthused by McCain's climate speech is Republicans for Environmental Protection, which is calling it a marker of a new era for the GOP on climate. "It's really refreshing to have a Republican nominee that truly understands climate change and the need to act, and is really pressing for that," said David Jenkins, government affairs director for the group. "We've been dealing with eight years of a president who has not felt the need to press on this issue."

Jenkins said he was impressed by McCain's emphasis on "building the infrastructure for a non-carbon energy future" -- expanding development of wind, solar, plug-in hybrids, and biofuels. He also praised the speech as a sign that the Republican Party is coming up to speed on science and public opinion, while returning to traditional conservative values that place an importance on environmental preservation.

"I don't think we've had a nominee since Teddy Roosevelt who truly understands that stewardship is supposed to be inherent to conservatism," said Jenkins. "Hopefully it will help the rest of our party leaders get more in sync with where rank-and-file Republican voters are on this issue, and where Americans are in general."

For story: McCain speech reactions
12 Comments | Post a Comment

Not to be trusted

McCain calls for only 60 percent reductions when climate experts warn we need at least 80, and that may not be enough. So we'll only have 100 million refugees instead of 200 million? We'll only lose half the coastal urban areas in the US? McCain's plan also allows offsets, which concerns me. And he just can't be trusted to protect the environment. Within one week of this climate speech, McCain has also promised to appoint more right wing justices like Roberts and Alito, which would place our most basic environmental laws in jeopardy. He has a career LCV voting score of under 30 percent. You want to know what a President will do, look at what he did as a Senator. McCain may have moments, but his overall record gives no cause for comfort.

by davedenali at 5:01 PM on 12 May 2008

Bush Lite

Good campaign ploy, especially at this point in the game. Nobody takes him serious, he will not be another environmnentalist in the order of Teddy Roosevelt.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

by Pompey Road at 5:25 PM on 12 May 2008

The Possible Versus The Impossible

Democrats have been in the majority for 2 years in Congress and have yet to do anything.

Why hasn't Hillary or Obama proposed (or enacted) anything?

by jabailo at 6:23 PM on 12 May 2008

Majority is not 2/3...

Democrats have been in the majority for 2 years in Congress and have yet to do anything.

Why hasn't Hillary or Obama proposed (or enacted) anything?

Take any government classes recently?

It's hard to do somethin' when the prez will veto and ya don't have a 2/3 majority override.

Majority is one thing, 2/3 majority is quite another.

And I'm pretty sure that both Hillary and Obama signed onto several bills aimed at gettin' the renewables credits passed.

And I think they both signed the bill that would've made all utilities get a good portion of their energy from renewables by 2020.

But the prez threatened veto, and it was chiseled down to just new MPG standards.

Which he then used an excuse to deny Califonia and the other states waivers which would've allowed 'em to enact stricter MPG and emissions regulations of their own.

In short, blame the prez, not the Dems.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:41 PM on 12 May 2008

Wakeup call

Hopefully this ploy to sway independents and moderates will awaken the democrats. If the republicans are taking the environment even somewhat seriously, the dems sure as hell better one-up them.

by Quinn at 7:27 PM on 12 May 2008

Name That Bill !!!

And I'm pretty sure that both Hillary and Obama signed onto several bills aimed at gettin' the renewables credits passed.

Name the bill(s), the mandate and the veto date.

by jabailo at 11:16 PM on 12 May 2008
[ Parent ]

I agree

Rarely though. No "pretty sure" talk please. I looks AWFUL if it is not true. It allows the opponents to score high and feel good. Embarrassing.

If Democrats do well, know it well before you post it. Making assumptions does not help. On the contrary, it allows politicians to get away with crap just because they belong to a certain party and those who vote for them do not check.

The only ways to make points is by knowing more or by having more power in other areas.

Karsten

by PolluteLessDotCom at 4:48 AM on 13 May 2008

comparing environmental records.

Re "name that bill" "I agree" -- the two posts above. Anyone who wants an objective way to compare Senator McCain's overall environmental record to Clinton's and Obama's would do well to look at their LCV scorecards over the years, and the description of the many dozens of bills voted on. www.lcv.org It takes some effort to look up past years, but Senator McCain is quickly exposed. He is no environmentalist. Both Obama and Clinton have excellent environmental records, and neither of them would appoint the right-wing (read: anti-environmental) justices that McCain recently promised.

by davedenali at 5:07 AM on 13 May 2008

Some legislative background

Clinton's voted for Lieberman-Warner in committee. S.2191. the bill has yet to reach the President, but you can be sure the White House is watching it closely to see if it is acceptable to their prime constituency, the oil and gas industry.

Clinton has introduced one piece of legislation that can be related to climate change in the last two years:

S.1059
Title: A bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to improve Federal building energy efficiency standards, and for other purposes.

Obama has introduced the following legislation that might have some bearing on climate change in the last two years:

S.133
Title: A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

S.767
Title: A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and for other purposes.

S.768
Title: A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and for other purposes.

S.2202
Title: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to increase the renewable content of gasoline, and for other purposes.

McCain of course introduced S.280 (McCain-Lieberman) and:

S.1900
Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.

by guade00 at 8:44 AM on 13 May 2008

re: some legislative background

I would not measure candidates commitment to climate action by what climate bills have introduced in this Congress. We don't have the 60 votes to overcome a certain Republican Senate filibuster of a good bill, and we don't have a responsible President. We need both as a precondidtion to legislation worth passing. As I have noted above, John McCain has a verifiably poor career environmental record as compared to the Democratic candidates. www.lcv.org Just last week, he promised more right wing Justices on a Court that has already rolled back environmental protections. A fifth extremist would be disastrous, and any environmentalist who supports John McCain is a damned fool.

by davedenali at 11:12 AM on 13 May 2008

And now we have data we needed.

Much better than "I think...", "I am pretty sure..." etc. regarding legislative records of politicians.

With this no one can say "Name that bill...!" and have a valid argument while pointing out the other person's erroneous assumptions.

Thanks.

Karsten

by PolluteLessDotCom at 1:22 PM on 13 May 2008

Cap and delay

Before we get all excited about McCain's position here, let's remember that a cap and trade law is only as good as the administration that is defining it and enforcing it.

The law would require that a cap, a limit, be set on how much CO2 can be emitted from large utilities that produce electricity.

Who sets that amount, the amount of the cap? That will be a huge issue. How long after they set the first cap, will they revise the cap to lower the emissions further?
Even with a cap and trade law, European greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.1% last year partly because caps were set so low.

McCain says in his interview previously posted here that we would lower the emissions slowly. How slowly?!? A cap and trade law can easily turn into an officially legislated barrier to timely steps against global warming.

Delay has been the tactic of the Wall Street fossil fuel Republican consortium that has opposed national action that would have reduced the global warming in a timely way. We need to be sure we are not putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop

Who do we trust to take strong action to rein in the fossil fuel companies, to set emissions standards that actually reduce the amount of carbon dioxide instead of letting it increase freely, as has happened during the last eight years.

Do we trust the party that allows fossil fuel corporations to write energy law? Do we trust the party that has kept the Environmental Protection Agency from publishing scientific findings about global warming; and that changed conclusions on reports about the climate to make it look like the situation does not require action? Do we trust the party that promised eight years ago to cap emissions from power plants and then did nothing? Do we trust the party that filled civil service positions around the country with people who had demonstrated ultra-conservative allegiance? Do we trust the party that has for decades been claiming that global warming is a liberal hoax?

Is this the party that we want to have advising our President on how to set caps on greenhouse gas emissions? Let's not be fooled by rhetoric, especially from the same group that gave us compassionate conservativism and lowered the living standard for the least affluent members of our society, that gave us a war on terror which substantially increased the strength and numbers of the terrorist organizations, that gave us lower taxes but shrank the value of the dollars so everything costs more!

by Zephaniah at 10:00 AM on 14 May 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

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.