McCain: Not So Straight On Energy
If you care about climate change, the last 24 hours provide the clearest illustration yet of the choice we face in November, and which candidate understands what we need to do.
In Detroit last night, Barack Obama took the stage with Al Gore to tell tough truths -- and propose specific policies to galvanize decades of green economic growth.
In Houston today, candidate McCain will tell the people that he used to call "special interests" that just because two oilmen are leaving the White House doesn't mean the gravy train has to end. Back in 2000, he promised he would "never lose sight" of the importance of protecting our natural heritage. Today his campaign reversed McCain's longstanding position and endorsed drilling off our coastlines. Oh -- and Senator McCain's reform agenda of getting tough on Big Oil? Now Candidate McCain is against any windfall profits tax to fund renewable energy.
If you think this will lower prices at the pump, think again: oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf (or OCS) wouldn't even begin until 2017 because we don't have the infrastructure -- the network of platforms and hundreds of miles of pipelines -- needed to support expanded drilling. And even the administration's own economists point out that it will have an "insignificant" impact on prices at the pump. Why, then, would anyone who prides himself on 'straight talk' propose drilling for oil that we won't see until at least 9 years from now as an answer to the problems of today? Sadly, it's a page torn out from the same cynical playbook that offered the McCain gas tax holiday.
More than a few people have asked me how the John McCain I knew so well, and teamed up with on CAFE standards in 2002, has ended up here. I can't fully answer that. But I know that the Senator McCain I knew, and who will always be my friend, is very different from this candidate McCain.
One possible explanation is that, based on recent quotes I first read on Grist, John McCain seems to have paid scant attention to the details of his own campaign proposals--or even the bill he sponsored in the Senate.
Just yesterday, McCain said, "I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those -- impose a mandatory cap at this time." Details are stubborn things: His own campaign proposal includes a mandatory cap.
And this isn't the first time: In another interview, he said: "It's not quote mandatory caps. It's cap-and-trade, OK. It's not mandatory caps to start with. It's cap-and-trade. That's very different. OK, because that's a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. So please portray it as cap-and-trade. That's the way I call it."
Call it anything you like -- but nobody would call it "straight talk."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
For the Hall Town Meetings, Obama should sit with the public and let McCain debate himself. It could be really interesting; the 2000 McCain debating the 2008 McCain. Totally different positions. The "maverick" does whatever is convenient at the time. Not a good quality for a president.
I agree with Kerry, what the heck happened to McCain? This is the guy who stood up to his own party? This is the Maverick?
I actually believed that McCain would be a tough opponent because he had an independent streak in him and could distance himself from a lot of the BS of the current administration. Even if I didn't agree with him, I could respect him for not always towing the party line. I was sure he would draw a lot of independent voters.
That man is gone or at least not showing his head these days. I guess he's had to sell out to big money and right wing nutcases in penance for campaign finance reform. Maybe David Duke would be a good running mate for him. I hear he has a good draw with the Republican base these days, the perfect VP for someone willing to abandon all principles.
We need to start drilling NOW. For all those that don't want to drill - stop complaining about the price of gas. Or stop saying we are in Iraq for Oil. Maybe we are because the environmentalist won't let us drill here.
Did you read the article? Drilling now will not have an effect for 5-10 years. Why don't we take the money we would spend on building the infrastructure and refineries to drill, transport and process the oil and put it into developing sustainable energy sources. By the time 10 years is up, we might have something that could make a difference, rather than more expensive oil and a destroyed planet.
Knowing that oil will come on stream will lower the current price.
If drilling was started 10 years ago that oil would be on stream now and causing the price to be lower while reducing the US buy of oil from non-north american sources.
Heartlight- did you consider who wrote the article? What the hell does he know about offshore infrastructure? Our oil industry sets the standard for the world, we can do great things given the opportunity.
Are you surprised that John Kerry is anti drilling? Why would he change his mind now? He has voted against every positive move that would make a difference to the energy security of our nation.
georgia...
AND...we Americans (I'm sad to say)...squ
Why not return to 55 MPH speed limits like Nixon did in the 70's? yup.I hated it..but it DID save gas!
It's called sacrifice.
Guess it's time for Americans to grow up..
I'm always reluctant to say it, because I know people are really hurting over this (as am I), but in the long run this energy crisis is going to be a good thing for us (as long as we survive it). It will push conservation and drive innovation, and that's what we need, not more oil, but alternatives to oil.
There is scientific conscensus that climate change is real. The debate is whether it's man made or due to natural causes. To do nothing about it because it's due to natural causes would be as insane as telling the fire department to only put out fires that are deliberately set. My personal opinion is that it's both, man made and natural. Our economic addiction to oil is a golden egg for that industry and they will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. However, the very survival of our civilization depends on developing environmentally benign sources of energy. The issue is that huge.
Republicans are banking on the idea that Americans will buy the notion that drilling in Alaska and off shore will reduce prices.
Why in the world would anybody sell oil for less than the market price? Doesn't make any sense. Are the republicans saying that the oil drilled off shore and in Alaska will be sold at a government subsidized price?
I just can't make head or tails of what they are saying.
It is true that we would be paying domestically instead of abroad for some oil and that has benefits but the price of oil is the economic price of the market and I don't see why we should agree with a Republican subsidy of gas to fill their Hummers.
As always the American populace and evidently their leaders are misinformed about oil use and therefore are prone to exaggeration. We are not completely dependant on foreign oil. We import somewhere in the range of 55 to 60 percent of our oil. Now most people assume that a majority of this is used for fuel. While it is a majority, it's a pretty slim one. We use about 30 to 40 percent for other things, like asphalt, preservatives in our food (yes that's right), cattle feed and scads and scads of plastic. So while everyone is harping on fuel costs, they completely ignore the other factors that make us so dependent on the black gold. I just love it when I see a guy on a bike saying he doesn't drive because of oil, and yet his handlebars are oil derived, along with his tires and shoes and the road he is pedaling down. I say we need to change our culture first, before we start looking for alternatives for energy. How about making electronics with less plastic, coming up with a better way to pave our roads, stop putting every single thing we own in plastic containers? Why aren't we talking about the things everybody can do to reduce their oil consumption. Why is it always straight to the most onerous and difficult approach? By reducing the items mentioned above, we can cut out consumption by almost 30 percent within a years, all without coughing up our cars.
Yet another example of McCain doing what he perceives he has to.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
McCain is all lies. He distances himself from Bush because he has to; he talks environment because he has to; he caves to the religious right because he has to; he has lobbyists leading his way because he has to; he opposes pro choice because he has to; he voted against water-boarding being designated as torture because he had to; he gave Bush a hug awhile back because he had to. He had to not only HUG Bush, but embrace the Bush/Cheney policies to get in the running. His principles are as shallow rooted as his sentences are cogent. The first storm that America has to endure--like the storm in due order to put our house in order--his principles will topple in the direction of the moneyed interests. That would be in fact a third Bush term.
Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Obama '08
Mark N. Cooper , Consumer Federation of America appeared on CSPAN this morning. If you have "flash player" it is available for replay at CSPAN.org under the left column heading Earlier Today. Mr Cooper explains the egregious dealings going on owing to deregulation of the mercantile exchanges. This interview should put to bed the notion of supply/demand driving the energy bubble.
Taxing oil companies is counterproductive in my view.
Yeah, we should subsidize them instead. We can trust them to pass the savings on to the consumer, right?
They'll pass the tax on to consumers. I'm totally against subsidies.
Thank you for the post Sen. Kerry. Although I did vote for you I have to disagree with the wind-fall tax on oil companies. Recent testimony before Congress by oil sector representatives admit that the price of oil, by any standard of the supply/ demand curve, should be between 40 and 60 dollars a barrel. The immediate problem is not going to be solved by taxing, because the immediate problem is speculation. This morning on CSPAN, Mark N. Cooper , Consumer Federation of America, made iti quite clear that deregulation of the mercantile exchanges, where presently futures on energy are leveraged at 5% money on the table, where accounting of who and when is not being addressed and where our own light sweet crude contracts are allowed to be governed by foreign entities. You guys in the Congress simply must close these loopholes and fast. Mr Cooper explains that between OPEC, who to my surprise claims it wants to see oil at 75-80 dollars, and the mercantile exchanges, the mark up is 60 dollars. This is a corrupt market that has begun to push aside the fundamentals for which it was established. I am beginning to equate this practice as pure unadulterated Evil. People are not simply suffering worldwide, but dying. I, for one, have had it up to here with laissez-faire economics. I believe the CSPAN interview is available for replay. This is a must watch. God save us.
Mike... I completely agree with you.
Testimony was brought before Congress regarding the rampant speculation that is severely impacting our oil prices... so it's not as if Mr. Kerry does not know the source.
Instead, he and others seem to ignore it or paint it as an irrelevant contributor instead of as accounting for easily half the increases we've seen in the price of oil.
The oil companies want to blame supply and demand economics, but that does not begin to account for the current pricing, which is, as you indicated, an Evil.
But, these speculators are lining the pockets of the rich with long term profits raised by their rampant speculation. And somehow, I don't see anyone in the House or the Senate as having the guts to say ENOUGH and put a stop to it by closing the loopholes.
Since this speculation is not tied to the typical laws of supply and demand (It is not in any way based on cost; they buy it regardless) it artificially drives up prices.
Here's a link to reference the testimony.
http://www
Mr Kerry may want a refresher. Of course, since he already has the information and appears to be choosing to do nothing about it, I suspect it won't matter.
Thanks for the straight talk, Senator Kerry. It is very much appreciated.
THE DAY WE'RE OFF FOREIGN OIL IS THE SAME DAY IT TAKES ONE BARREL OF OIL TO GET ONE BARREL OUT OF THE GROUND
AND THEN WE COLLAPSE
McCain and GOP forced and shoved the now failed Energy Policy upon Democrats against strong objections! Now McCain and GOP want to pretend that “New” solutions are needed and want to forget their GOP INSISTENCE to rape and pillage the Country! McCain and GOP wanted Democrats to just lay back and enjoy being raped as Big Oil pocketed record profits!
The McCain and GOP Energy Policy failure has now come home to roost and now the GOP pretends that they had nothing to do with it! McCain says “OH go drill more oil for Big Oil and everything will be OK again!” The total abject failure of the McCain GOP Energy policy must be squarely tied around McCain’s and GOP necks! It is completely OUTRAGEOUS for McCain now to ignore the blatant failed Energy Policy they insisted on and now claim in their BIZARE IMAGINATION that it must be the Democrats fault! NOT THIS TIME! McCain and the GOP ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ENERGY FAILURE AND MANY OTHERS AND MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE MEDIA!
Gore and Democrats pushed hard for responsible Global Climate Change legislation to increase conservation and alternate energy efficiency and reduce oil consumption that McCain, Bush, Cheney, and GOP JUST LAUGHED AT! Now we have 500 years floods and $140 oil going to $200! The Media must hold McCain and GOP accountable and responsible for the TOTAL ABJECT FAILURE of the Energy Policy, except of course for the record BIG OIL PROFITS! FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Well, well, well, Mr. "Maverick" McCain flip-flops on his "signature" "maverick" issue: climate change, and now he's no longer for "mandatory" CO2 emissions caps. Or maybe he's confused?
Or maybe he's a lying piece of GOP.
John Kerry! Kewl!!!!!!!!!!
*star struck*
Whatever anyone believes the potential pros of drilling for more domestic oil to be, nobody seems to be bring up that fact that drilling for more petroleum fuels is not going to help our Global Warming problem..I would personally much rather see the time, money, and other resources we would need to use to drill for more oil put towards alternative energy and research. Drilling for more oil now is putting a band-aid on a problem that we have a potentially very limited window of opportunity to combat..Do we have the time or resourses to waste? I think not...
Then why are you not in favor of CO2 and air pollution free nuclear generated electricity that can provide huge amounts of energy day or night, rain or shine. The added benefit is that a huge majority of the world's uranium is found in Canada, US, and Australia (about 75+%)
And what is the cost in energy to produce nuclear energy?
Solar and wind - but of course, they can't be metered and distribution controlled. These 2 sources of energy are what could do the trick. Why are the oil companies totally ignoring any
serious development of the above 2 energy sources, in spite of their smarmy "we're sooo green" commercials (which btw make me sick *g*)
Did I say anything either way about nuclear power? Since you brought it up though, I have nothing against nuclear POWER but I have a big problem with our inability to dispose of WASTE safely, and cost effectivel
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
