Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Carly Fiorina on McCain

RNC 'Victory Chair' talks about McCain's climate agenda

Posted by Kate Sheppard at 10:00 PM on 17 May 2008

Muckraker: Grist on PoliticsCarly FiorinaGrist recently caught a few minutes with Carly Fiorina, the "Victory Chair" of the Republican National Committee. (Quite the title, eh? Apparently it means she's "the primary advocate for John McCain and the Republican Party" at the RNC.)

Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and a former executive at both AT&T and Lucent Technologies, is charged with traveling the country to promote McCain's plans for economic growth and job creation. Grist asked her how she thinks his climate policy fits into that plan, and what kind of reception they've had so far in promoting his environmental agenda.

What do you think McCain's speech this week said about the changing politics of global warming?

It's an issue that matters to a lot of people. In particular it matters to a lot of young people. I think it's important that when we think about taking on some of the great challenges now as opposed to leaving them to future generations, we have to talk not only about Social Security and medical care, but also about leaving our planet cleaner for the next generation than we found it. So I think that's the context in which he's talking about climate change, which I think is related closely to the whole discussion of energy independence.

Since you're traveling around promoting Sen. McCain's climate plans for the RNC, what's been the reaction so far, particularly from the business community?

This is the beginning of the conversation, not the end. As you might expect, there is mixed reaction to his specific proposals, although I think there is growing consensus that the issues of climate change and energy independence are inextricably linked. And I think what at a high level, at a philosophical level, what John McCain laid out this week is the fundamental principle that we cannot address the preservation of the environment and ensure that our economy continues to grow unless we rely on innovation to help us solve these problems.

He seems to leave the door open for the auction of carbon credits, but doesn't actually outline any plans there. Auctioning credits would create even greater market incentive to go green. So, why not push for greater, faster auction, as the other presidential candidates have done?

I think the goal that McCain set in his speech -- and you're right, those goals differ and are lower than the goals that Obama or Clinton would suggest -- is because he's a realist and practical about what's actually an achievable goal. You don't actually get anything done -- and as a businesswoman I know this -- if you set goals that are out of reach. When you get something done is when you set a goal that is ambitious but achievable.

He said very little in the speech about the role of government in advancing alternative energy and getting these technologies on the market.

One role of government that he's talked about a lot is to fund basic research. The internet is a classic example. The internet started as a basic research project for the government, and ultimately that research produced a capability that could be improved upon by entrepreneurs. I think in this regard, John McCain would be saying that we should be doing the same thing through government-funded basic research, and we can make more rapid progress on some of these important, innovative technologies, and let the marketplace and the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people take those out into the marketplace.

A lot of people have asked why he calls for support for a mature industry like nuclear, and not for less mature industries like wind and solar. Why is that?

I don't think that's completely true, but I do think it's a reflection of the reality that without embracing nuclear power, we won't achieve energy independence. It's not that wind and solar are not important. They're very important. They're necessary but they're insufficient given the amount of energy we consume and demand and require. He's just giving straight talk. He's being realistic. If we want to achieve energy independence, we have to go to nuclear power.

What are some of the key tax incentives that McCain could push for, in your opinion, to really develop the green economy?

I think he believes that the cap-and-trade system, if appropriately executed -- and there are lots of places where it has not been appropriately executed -- can create tax incentives for innovation, because in essence it permits companies to build up cash if they can develop and utilize alternative technologies. He would also make the R&D tax credit permanent. That encourages innovation in research and development, without a doubt.

How about the production tax credit for renewable energy?

I think that's another example.

Is that something you think he will support, since that's something that's likely to come up again soon.

I don't want to make any predictions about it specifically, but he has demonstrated that he is willing to look at all good ideas. He's not an ideologue, although he has very firm principles, one of which is that markets work. So I think he will look at any and all good ideas, including that one.

Your role at the RNC is to help promote the senator's plans to create jobs and economic growth. What's the connection here with his climate plan?

The connection is that innovation creates jobs. Innovation is what builds small businesses. Small businesses become big businesses, but small businesses produce 75 percent of the jobs in this country. Innovation is what creates whole new industries -- that's where you get jobs. For me, it's not just about environmental policy, it's about economic policy.

Funny...

...usually CEOs of the big tech companies (Yahoo, Google, Dell, etc.) lean towards the liberal side.

Guess there's exceptions to the rule, huh?

"ambitious but achievable"

oh yeah, carly's the poster girl for that. even her wikipedia entry agrees.

On 10 October 2006 while she was interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show, Fiorina asserted that her leadership [of hewlett-packard] was strong throughout, and that the Compaq merger was well conceived, but misunderstood by the Board.

doesn't that sound like the humility of a moderate pragmatist? it's not a bad way to put the mccain environmental agenda, either.

his leadership was strong throughout, and the climate action plan was well conceived, but poorly executed by nature.

tough luck! try again in another hundred thousand years.

This Carly Fiorina?

This Carly Fiorina? Huh.


"Hewlett-Packard has recently been losing market-share in the PC business, which put her leadership into question," said Magid. "A lot of employees resented her leadership, and apparently the board was ready to see her go as well."

"There was a certain style at Hewlett-Packard before Fiorina arrived. It was called the 'HP Way.' It was a very collegial and close-knit company. Fiorina changed all that, and frankly a lot of people at Hewlett-Packard are probably going to be happy about her departure"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/09/ap/business/mai ...



-David Ahlport
She says "think" 13 times

This woman has very little conception of environmental issues. She  sidesteps all of the questions and regurgitates intelligent sounding answers with very little substance.  She sounds like she has no idea what she's talking about.

I mean come on now.  Climate change is not about "leaving our planet cleaner."  It's about averting catastrophe.  And she "thinks" that climate change and energy independence are closely related?  Wake up!  There's no uncertainty that they are related.

The goals we are talking about are more like deadlines and less like goals.  They are not like a business goal of making this much profit next quarter.  Goals can afford to be striven for and not reached.  Deadlines, like CO2 levels needed to avert disaster set by the IPCC, are non-negotiable.  That's being realistic.  Setting any goal lower than what science dictates is necessary is irresponsible and borderline lazy.

Nuclear energy on the scale necessary to achieve energy independence is not "realistic."  The amount of time and resources required to decommission aging nuclear plants and constructing new ones is not something we can afford.  It's unrealistic.  Especially in the time frame that we have to deal with climate change.  We do not have decades to wait for all the plants to be up and running.

A cap and trade system is not a tax incentive.  

She doesn't know what the production tax credit for renewable energy is.

"For me, it's not just about environmental policy, it's about economic policy."  Don't fool yourself honey.  It's only about economic policy.

Whats more.

She doesn't know what the production tax credit for renewable energy is.

More to the point, she doesn't know McCain's position on the PTC.  He's against it.

I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time.
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/01/mccain/

And he's essentially voted against it.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=513 ...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/mccain-stimulus-2/

-David Ahlport

Don't under-estimate her

I worked for Carly Fiorina (as a peon behind a computer screen), while she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

One suggestion: Do not under-estimate her. She is a dynamite marketing-person, fearless, and with abundant energy. She is smart and a quick study.

As CEO of HP, she had a tragic flaw that led to her downfall. But she seems to have dusted herself off and gotten back on the public stage.

I was critical of her as CEO, but her talents may be well suited for politics.


Bart
Energy Bulletin

Concerns...

One suggestion: Do not under-estimate her. She is a dynamite marketing-person, fearless, and with abundant energy. She is smart and a quick study.

That's what we're concerned 'bout.

These characteristics would be good if she were to support a responsible and well-founded climate change plan.

But if she enodrses one that isn't...then these attributes may work against us.

Then again...if they didn't work in her favor at HP...then they might not work in her favor in politics...

Make sure she's pointed in the right directioin

These characteristics would be good if she were to support a responsible and well-founded climate change plan.

But if she endorses one that isn't...then these attributes may work against us.

I agree completely, Tasermons Partner. Like a guided missile -- it's important that it's headed in the right direction.

For sure though, Carly is a different breed than the people around George Bush. She is pragmatic and not as ideological (I don't even know what her political opinions are). From her experience in high tech, she is much more open to science.

Perhaps I'm over-optimistic, but I think she is a person that environmentalists could work with.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Democrats Leave Us In A Deadly Cul De Sac


All Democrat policy could leave the planet in a deadly cul de sac.

Their theory of CO2 causing temperature rise, proven only in models, should be taken seriously...only because we cannot play games with civilization.

Yet, the other side of the coin is that Obama Democrats are not recognizing the very real danger of temperature rise caused by natural forces.

If we end up lowering our CO2 production, mostly due to the injection of new technologies into the marketplace, and the temperatures continue to rise...what then?

We are left in a situation in which we are unprepared for the detriments or benefits or global warming!   Surely, the Democrat policy is the most shortsighted of all!


Short-sighted...

Their theory of CO2 causing temperature rise, proven only in models

The relationship between rise in CO2 and temperature has been well established...just go into your local greenhouse to feel it yourself.

Why do ya think we call it greenhouse gas?

Yet, the other side of the coin is that Obama Democrats are not recognizing the very real danger of temperature rise caused by natural forces.

Such as?  What natural forces?  All other possible natural forces have been accounted for and it's been determined that they couldn't cause this much a rise in temperatures this quickly by themselves.

If ya have evidence to the contrary, and know that natural forces are solely at cause, please feel free to share with us (and maybe inform the United Nations while you're at it * rolls eyes )

If we end up lowering our CO2 production, mostly due to the injection of new technologies into the marketplace, and the temperatures continue to rise...what then?

*jabailo, I don't think ya understand the situation.  The temperature will continue to rise, it's a given.

Even if we literally eliminated all human-induced GHG production tomorrow, baned all cars, coal, oil and gas production, industrial agriculture, abandoned all suburbs and cities and went to live purely as foragers in the wild...

...even if we did all that, temperatures would continue to rise for at least the next 50 years.

GHGs, once in the atmosphere, take a very long time to stabilize, for the Earth to return the balance and amount back to it's "original" state.

We have a 50+ years' worth of buildup in the atmosphere.  And even if we abruptly stopped all human-GHG production, that amount would remain there until the Earth finally recovered.

However, that's not to say that we can't slow the rate of climate change down.  And if we're lucky, we may develop in such a way that not only do we stop human-GHG production, but that we actually take out the GHGs that we've already put into the atmosphere.

Look at it this way...ya have cancer.  A cancer which at this point is "incurable".  But that doesn't mean that ya just give up, sit on a hospital bed, decide to make the best of it, gouge yourself on comfort food, and prepare to die.  We have a way to slow down the growth rate of the cancer.  A way that could even drop it's spread down to zero.  And the slower it spreads, the more time we'll have to live, the more likely we'll be able to eventually get rid of it altogether.

Surely, the Democrat policy is the most shortsighted of all!

Weren't conservatives the ones in favor of segregation, slavery, loyalty to the throne, rights only to white male landowners, and also opposed to the teaching of evolution, and the Big Bang theory, intially opposed television, radio, non-classical/gospel music, blood tranfusions, and the belief that the Earth revolved around the sun?

Wasn't that a bit shortsighted?

Why do ya think the Democrates are called the progressive party? * rolls eyes *


Only In Video Games...

The relationship between rise in CO2 and temperature has been well established

Only in the video games that they call models.

Not in the real world.

temperatures would continue to rise for at least the next 50 years.

My point exactly.   We are not using 100% of resources to focus on the natural caused changes of temperature increase.

Look at it this way...ya have cancer.  A cancer which at this point is "incurable".  But that doesn't mean that ya just give up, sit on a hospital bed, decide to make the best of it,

I look at it this way.   The IPCC are a bunch of cancer specialists.  A man walks through the door, they claim he's got cancer.   They then steal the man's bank account in trying to "treat" him.   Turns out, he just wasn't getting enough energy because the Greens had siphoned his bank account, so he couldn't buy food.

You're confused...

Only in the video games that they call models.

Not in the real world.

You're not listening.  You're confusin' micro and macro.

CO2 has been linked to rising temperatures, that's why greenhouses are warm, the only area that critics contest is whether it's doin' it at a global scale.

That CO2 causes warmin' at a smaller scale has been known for quite some time.

Where did ya think the original idea came from that CO2 could warm up the atmosphere?  From a magician's hat?  People have known for well over a century that CO2 caused warming in greenhouses and other confined spaces.

That's why it's called a greenhouse gas!

No computer models required...they didn't even have any back in the 1800's, and they knew it then.

Unless ya think that elves are responsible for warmin' up greenhouses?...

n

Quinn wrote: The amount of time and resources required to decommission aging nuclear plants

Zero.
google.com/search?q=SafStor+nuclear

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.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks