Staff Contributors
Staff Contributors
Adam Browning
Adam Stein
Alan Durning
Andrew Dessler
Andrew Sharpless
Ariane Lotti
Ben Tuxworth
biodiversivist
Brad Johnson
Coby Beck
Edward Mazria
Eric de Place
Erik Hoffner
Frank O'Donnell
Gar Lipow
Glenn Hurowitz
Guest author
Jason D Scorse
Jim Goodman
JMG
John McGrath
John McQuaid
Jon Rynn
Joseph Romm
Josh Dorner
Ken Ward
Kit Stolz
Laura Hess
Lisa J. Bunin
Lou Bendrick
Maywa Montenegro
Melinda Henneberger
Meredith Niles
Michael Hoexter
Michael Moynihan
Miles Grant
Sean Casten
Sharon Astyk
Steph Larsen
Stephanie Paige Ogburn
Summer Rayne Oakes
Thomas Dobbs
Van Jones
Zoe Bradbury


Cheney's third term

McCain's economy plan fails to substantially address energy efficiency

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 1:12 PM on 07 Jul 2008

mccain-cheney.jpg

John McCain takes the "conserve" out of "conservative." His entire energy efficiency strategy would fit on one side of a very small file card and can be summarized as follows: Ban Porsches, green federal buildings, and applaud homeowners who do stuff on their own!

His repackaged new economic plan, "Jobs for America" has precisely three paragraphs that deal with efficiency:

CAFE Standards: John McCain has long supported CAFE standards -- the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.

Seriously. That's all he has to say about fuel economy. McCain's entire fuel economy strategy is to force a small number of "higher end auto companies like BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes" to make their cars fuel efficient. What a transformative, addiction-ending idea -- I bet it would reduce U.S. oil consumption at least one-tenth of 1 percent:

Building Efficiency

Government Purchasing: John McCain will make greening the federal government a priority of his administration. The federal government is the largest electricity consumer on earth and occupies 3.3 billion square feet of space worldwide. It provides an enormous opportunity to lead by example. By applying a higher efficiency standard to new buildings leased or purchased and retrofitting existing buildings, we can save taxpayers money in energy costs, and move the construction market in the direction of green technology.

Good luck. Conservatives like McCain, including Newt Gingrich in the 1990s and President Bush this decade, have been blocking progressive efforts to significantly increase the Federal Energy Management Program budget for decades. Note to McCain: the construction market has already swung heavily in the direction of green technology in the past decade -- thanks mainly to the U.S. Green Building Council.

But the last paragraph on efficiency is the best of all. It puts McCain squarely in the Dick Cheney school of energy efficiency:

American Homes: Homeowners can save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year with better light bulbs, appliances, windows, and insulation. As Americans retro-fit to improve energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprint, jobs will flow to the U.S. providers of insulation, windows, appliances, and other sources of energy efficiency.

I kid you not. Rather than offering a single government policy to accelerate efficient technologies into residences (or commercial buildings or the industrial sector, for that matter), which would simultaneously lower energy costs, create jobs, and reduce greenhouse gases -- McCain devotes an entire paragraph in his "Jobs for America" plan to no policy whatsoever, but rather an expression of his confidence that homeowners will do everything on their own ...

I now realize that McCain's 100-nukes strategy is really a clever plan to increase the electricity bills of American homeowners, thereby incentivizing them to become more efficient on their own. Hmm. Now that I think of it, the Bush/Cheney/McCain economic plan to drive millions of Americans out of their homes, forcing them to live with relatives or in apartments or on the streets, is really an effort to encourage the virtue of conservation. Why didn't progressives think of that?

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

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