McCain speaks on global warming
John McCain breaks with the Bush administration, but also with many environmentalists in a major global warming speech today.
The presumptive Republican nominee declares that climate change is undeniable and urgent, suggesting that the United States hasn't acted quickly enough and pledging to return to international negotiations. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto global warming accord.
"We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them," he plans to say, according to excerpts provided by his campaign. "Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge."
While he will speak at a wind turbine plant in Portland, Ore. and says he supports clean energy alternatives, McCain also proposes an expansion of nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions -- anathema to most of the environmental community.
"[We] have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions," he says. "We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about 20 percent of our electricity.... It doesn't take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause."
McCain says he would set limits on greenhouse gases and allow the sale of rights of excess emissions -- what is known as a cap and trade system. "By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050," he says.
McCain is also airing a new TV ad in Oregon, which is shaping up as a battleground state in the fall, on the issue. The ad argues that he offers a "better way" between those who deny climate change is real and those who want to increase taxes to solve it.
The Arizona senator -- who has said that New Hampshire voters, in his ultimately unsuccessful 2000 campaign, helped pique his interest in the climate change issue -- says in the speech that he has personal knowledge of global warming.
"A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today – because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor's center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades."
UPDATE: The Democratic National Committee criticized McCain's environmental record.
"McCain's fundraisers and advisers helping his campaign have been on the wrong side of the issues. And a little investigation reveals that the lobbyists raising money for and running McCain's campaign have earned $13.1 million lobbying for oil companies and worked for companies responsible for oil spills, water and air pollution," the DNC said in a memo.
UPDATE: Barack Obama issued this statement: “It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy. You don’t have to look further than the wind turbine plant where Senator McCain is speaking today to assess his commitment to this cause. While Senator McCain talks about the need to invest in alternative energy, he rejected the single biggest investment in renewable energy in history, including incentives that contributed to a nearly 50% increase in wind power generation last year, and he has repeatedly opposed renewable fuel mandates and higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
“In stark contrast, I’ve called for a national standard to ensure that we're using more renewable energy, an expansion of our green energy sector that would create millions of green jobs, and a bipartisan plan to double our fuel efficiency standards. That is why the American people will have a clear choice in November when I am the nominee -- between a candidate who opposes real solutions to our energy crisis, and leadership that will solve it once and for all."
UPDATE: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers issued this statement tonight in response: "It is hypocrisy -- we would say 'breathtaking' hypocrisy, but for the fact that it's so common in the Obama campaign -- for Senator Obama to today use John McCain's vote against the 2005 Bush-Cheney energy bill to question his record and sincerity as an advocate for addressing climate change. Senator Obama voted for that bill, which included billions in oil and gas company handouts that Senator Obama claims to oppose daily on the campaign trail. By contrast, John McCain opposed that bill because it did nothing to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and failed to address global climate change while doling out over $14 billion in corporate subsidies and tax breaks. Further, John McCain has been fighting for higher fuel economy standards since 2001, before Senator Obama joined the Senate. John McCain was a driving force in pushing fuel economy standards at a time when gas prices were low and it took will and resolve -- not cheap political posturing."
Ha.
John McCain says whatever is politically expedient, just like Hillary Clinton. Nobody is 100% consistent, but he flips & flops in words and deeds like a fish out of water. Once I recognized that, I lost all willingness to believe in his sincerity.
That doesn't mean he doesn't have any good things to say. Anyone can have (or parrot) good ideas. But it would be folly to trust him on that basis.
Thank goodness McCain has the guts to stand for nuclear power. It's time to look for concrete solutions to global warming. We've had too much willingness to criticize every solution for its flaws. In the words of George S. Patton, "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow." The time to act is now!
Re: #1:
John McCain has changed his stance on some issues, but he has been quite consistent on fighting global warming for may years...before Obama was ever in the Senate. He sponsored and fought for, along, with Joe Lieberman, legislation to limit global warming for many years. He has spoken out for higher fuel efficiency for cars. I received a mailing from him several years ago asking me to support an environmental group called "Environmental Defense Fund," which is a great organization. He has consistently taken heat from Oil-company supporting Republicans for his principled stand on this issue.
Why do people feel they can express their views without bothering to research and know what they are talking about? What an easy world that must be, if a completely inaccurate one.
So lets see now... the species that claims superior intellect on the planet believes that creating radioactive waste that remains deadly for thousands of generations is worth a moment of electric power.
Good luck with that!
What is the trade off? Spent nuclear fuel is next to impossible to deal with. It is not about what the political hopefuls say, that is meaningless. It is about the future generations of humans that will have to deal with OUR mistakes. Glow in the dark grand babies, No thank you.
As evolving information and technology changes, why can't a person change their mind?
If a new technology is better than one of decades ago, should we not embrace it?
So, I don't necessarily see this as" flip flopping" but as what may be best for the future of our great land
I thought we were supposed to be able to count on SOMEONE to carry on the resistance to Al Gore and his band of eco-terrorists. I guess not. Now we can all look forward to carbon taxes and higher operating costs all in the name of combating a phantom enemy - an enemy that doesn't exist.
If anyone thinks it would be a good idea to know what McCain has said in the past, watch him in action against a Bush lackey in a congressional hearing. This was done some time ago, before the heat of the campaign. He uses his no-nonsense style to oppose the guy'"do-nothing" approach on global warming. If this doesn't make some people think he's committed to fighting global warming, well, I guess facts no longer matter (a trait W. shares, by the way):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vb0ReiA2QA8
Nuclear power is only realistic option for reducing global warming and pushing away from fossil fuels. I would also argue that it's the most environmentally friendly since it requires significantly less land area to meet our energy needs and the waste is contained.
Nuclear power plant designs have evolved considerably over the last fifty years and safety has been improved to the point where it's difficult to create a disaster even if you wanted to. The Generation IV designs look particularly promising. There are also techniques for reducing and reprocessing the waste that may eliminate the storage issue. Most of our existing waste is actually from refining uranium to make nuclear weapons -- not power plants.
I don't think people realize that Chernobyl was a horrible design that lacked a containment -- a very basic and important safety feature, and one which prevented Three Mile Island from becoming a similar disaster. I might also add that design flaws that allowed these incidents to happen are not present in newer designs.
Maybe someday we'll figure out a way to make solar and other technologies viable, but they're just not there.
Re: #5 (and others)
I'm against McCain's gaining the presidency due to his degraded ethics, as opposed to any political stance. His statements on the environment may have merit, he may have been consistent on them, and he may even believe them. But I will not vote for him under any circumstances, because of the following:
John McCain did a complete ethical about-face when he went from correctly branding hatemongering religious icons as "agents of intolerance" in the last election cycle, to aggressively seeking their support this time.
Because he has done this, he has demonstrated irrefutably that he lacks the necessary moral courage that we need in a president, no matter how much he loves polar bears or windmills. He has elevated politics above principles, and that is precisely what has created all of the pervasive problems in human society. He represents moral failure. End of story.
Erik,
I beg to differ. 1. Wind power's already "viable." Go to Hull, Massachusetts, and have a look at the turbines. Then multiply by however many times you like. 2. With the threat of terrorism who would volunteer to have the nuclear plant in his or her backyard, especially with spent fuel rods sitting in what are essentially outdoor swimming pools? 3. Finally, nuclear power costs more than wind or solar, as documented in the latest newsletter from the Rocky Mountain Institute, which specializes in private sector solutions to climate change and energy.
Oops - I meant "Re: #3 (and others)".
We are screwed
Dr. Sax - Your points are valid and I'm sure wind/solar power is viable and cheaper then nuclear but with our current technology wind/solar could never come close to meeting the US need for electricity. People don't want nuclear in their back yard but they also don't want windmills. Take a look at the complaints from the Mars Hill wind farm in Maine. Nuclear is a viable option right now. Perhaps 50-100 years down the road wind and solar technology will be advanced enough to supply the electric needs of the U.S. but something needs to done now without crippling the US economy with tax increases and carbon caps.
Lots of people like to point to the EU as a body that is much more environmentally friendly then the US and isn't being hit as hard by rising oil prices. Well the EU gets significantly more of it's power from nuclear sources. I believe France genereates about 75% of it's power from nuclear sources. The bottom line is that modern nuclear plants are much cleaner and safer then the plants even 25 years ago and this is an option that shouldn't just be written off without properly exploring it.
Chowdahead (#14) is precisely correct. Nuclear is the intermediary step we require in order to phase out oil and phase in renewables. This will be made increasingly clear to the US population over the next few years.
Now, ask yourself this:
Which presidential candidate took this stance before McCain?
That's right, you can say it. Barack Obama was on message before the message was on you. McCain is beginning to follow suit, but he's going to pretend it's his suit that Obama's following.
Watch.
And don't be fooled.
Chowdahead,
RE: Mars Hills: there may be some complaints, but it's actually there and cranking megawatts out, and more wind power's coming, including, very likely, in Nantucket Sound. Meanwhile, a utility scale solar plant (using solar generated steam to run turbines) is up and running in the California desert. Again, the model is replicable, and there's plenty of desert to put it on. Even if McCain becomes president, no one's going to tolerate a new nuclear facility in their town.
maybe the problem is that there is too many problems and not enought solutions. I wish i knew the best way to solve the problem of global warming but the important thing is that i admitt that there is a problem and search for the solution. The probem with our generation is that we leave everything to be handled by future generations and future governments. This world is full of ignorant people who refuse to make a difference or even agnolige that there's a problem. i don't know mccain personaly so i don't know if really does feel strongly about the issue or if he is just saying it for the votes but either way i am glad that something has been said by a powerfull person. Maybe now someone will listen
People in this country have turned into a bunch of weenies. We can't build nuclear plants, foundries, chemical plants, oil refineries, and we can't drill for oil. Then we complain about high oil prices and jobs moving to China. It takes 20 years of litigation to add a single airport terminal here, when China builds a whole new airport in four years.
Just to set the record straight, if business could make more money with solar and wind turbines it would. It's that simple. Solar is much more expense than nuclear and although wind generated electricty is not, the major problems with wind power is insufficient choice locations such as Cape Cod. Wind turbines barely turn when it's hot and sticky. That is when we need the electricty the most.
The total amount of nuclear wast a human would use in his lifetime, 77 years, would fit into a coffee cup. No one in this country ever died because of a nuclear accident. Sailors have been living in nuclear submarines for decades, and they are all healthier than sailors in regular submarines. Does any one realize that we are the only country with the natural resources we need, but refuse to explore or drill? We tell other countries to produce more. Do we live on another planet? If they pollute, it will not go into the same environment that we live in? Do you think other countries can drill more environmentaly friendly than we can? Do you think their productivity would be better? Solar and wind are all fine, but they will not support a growing economy.
Don't expect logic or common sense from politicians. These are the non-producers of our country. The most successful are charismatic, speak well, and are well controlled by others. What they say is orchestrated by others, they have no capacity to think on their own and to be guided by knowledge and the intelligent use of that knowledge. Looks at the history of politicians. The most advanced accomplishment is typically a law degree, but they turn to politics because that is the only capability they have: to talk, to bargain, and to sell themselves to groups that control them. They are manufactured people. The best we can hope for is to get some info on who they associate with, who they travel with and who they appear to be loyal to. Then judge the drift of where the politician will lead us. Don't expect them to choose good, knowlegable advisors because those that control them will be first in line to install the ones that they prefer. This is as it has always been, from the earliest times of civilization:
Just so you know, Global Warming is just a way for there to be a global tax on the environment. Once it begins to naturally go away, they will say it is working and raise the taxes.
"Dont be fooled"
When candidates speak out and pledge to do something about global warming we should all applaud it. Most politicians will say whatever is expedient to their success. They have few alternatives and most of them are not people of strong conviction in any case. Politicians "read" the popular consensus and act along with it. What matters here is the outcome, not the motivation.
McCain should start by recalling his gas tax idea. That was plain stupid and he should say so. It won't help and besides we need higher gas prices instead of lower gas prices.
Raising taxes on gas is the best thing anyone can do for the environment. Nobody likes to pay more, but it won't hurt us to do so. We will drive less and be more attentive towards the value of oil. It is a precious resource. It should not be wasted to heat or cool empty homes, or to drive oversized trucks down the highway.
Let's stop the madness and raise gas taxes instead. The money we collect can be used for lots of good causes. Universal health care, better education, alternative energy, national parks, you name it.
I was concerned about Global Warming so I watched Al Gore's movie. I was horrified that all this was going on. I became interested so I started researching his examples, which is extremely easy with the Internet. To my surprise, I found out things were not so bad. My favorite example is his discussion of lake Chad almost drying up in 1984. I thought, "Holy cow! That giant lake almost dried up? This Global Warming stuff is serious!". Guess what? Lake Chad is the most shallow lake in the world and almost dried up in 1908 as well (according to Wikipedia). Aren't either of these facts relevant? I'll send this info to Al Gore if I can find his email address. Watch his movie and search out his examples on the Internet.
So, overall, Global Warming a case of creating a catastrophe to get control. Yes, the earth is warmer now than it was 100 years ago. Did people cause this with carbon emissions? Were there so many emissions in 1908 that it caused lake Chad to dry up? Why do we think that the earth should stay the same temperature?
For my generation, I'm 75, I knew the limits of public willful ignorance when we elected Jimmy Carter. As the worst president in USA history, Ford, Clinton, the Bush's followed. The complacency of all but the nuts among us who would bring us down is almost worthy of our self destruction. Think of it. We have fought 100
years and paid in sacred blood and treasure the tyrannies of "ISMS" (socialism, communism, fascism) and capitalism beat them all. In 2008, thanks to the ACLU
defended radicals in our educational system and their radical propaganda, we, like sheep that we have become, will go to the polls and, with only the duress
of willful ignorance, actually vote to elect one of three socialists who vary in their
anti-capitalism from radical to extreme radicalism and they will carry on the
destruction of our country by policies that will enslave and third world America.
Puck was right; "WHAT FOOLS THESE MORTALS BE!"
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
browse this blog
by categoryINside Boston.com
in the area