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."

Comments

[BamaForObama]

It's sickening to see how much integrity John McCain has given up, between 2000 and now. He has to be the most out of touch presidential candidate in history. He obviously has no idea where he stands on things, which explains why he seems to flip-flop constantly. Thanks for this post, Senator Kerry, and thanks for supporting Barack Obama, the next President of the United States.

[returnofthejedi]

Watching politics closley for the last few years I must admit that John Mcain used to be one of the republicans I respected. Now, while I respect his military service, he is a totally different politician than before. He seems to be championing the same policies that have done so much harm to the economy, and has totally changed on many of the issues. No disrespect to the Senator, but I think Barack Obama is right when he says a vote for Mcain is a vote for Bush and his corporate cronies.

Jedi

[max]

look at his forign policy advisors..­.if you liked the last eight years you'll love the next for with this mccain..

[obsessed]

McCain on energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4eeQzDlgM&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/

[leduck]

John Kerry

green economic growth?
Surely you must know that the energy density of oil is substantially higher then that of wind, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal "clean coal." etc
clean coal would use energy to make it "clean."

There is nothing out there that can match the power of oil

I am not defending McCain's plan to drill offshore -- that's not cheap oil and it will take time to come online.

I like renewable energy but I know it's no panacea.
we're not going to match the our current standard of living on renewable energy any time soon.

[Heartlight3]

So, what do you suggest? Keep going the way we are until it is gone and then...wha­t? I think we should at least try to figure out other ways of powering our lives. I'd rather try to come up with a solution than not try.

[darthdarcy]

Senator Kerry; We all know McCain is in the pocket of big oil and also that he has that swindler Phil Gramm as his chief economic adviser who created the Enron loophole..­.in 2000

Why is it that you and so many other Senators including Senator Obama of both parties are ignoring the testimony of Professor Michael Greenberger who was the Director of the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission before the Senate Commerce Committee.­...when he detailed why these oil prices have run up out of control, and how we can solve this almost immediately by establishing once again the reasonable regulations always meant to protect these vital markets from such criminal manipulati­on..?

[theMightyT]

Because the issue being put forth is the lie of drilling for more oil. It's being constantly repeated - drill for oil! drill for oil! drill for oil! What they are trying to do is expose McCain for his inconsistencies and lack of understanding of this part of the energy crisis.

Did the professor testify on offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska? And does it have anything to do with McCain's lies?

You have an excellent point that the market has been manipulated - in Canada a gasoline price-fixing ring was just busted. But that doesn't have anything to do with drilling for oil and its false promise of lowering gas prices.

[darthdarcy]

There have been multiple statements from great sources confirming that this meteoric increase the last two years especially that this is not driven by supply demand it is the speculators using dark markets where there is no oversight at all behind this increase Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs others, Hedge Funds and Traders in London, Western Texas...ma­ny of the very same traders who previously worked for Enron and pulled that swindle on California over electricity are now hired by these other houses to do the same with Oil..The head of OPEC, the VP of Exxon even said Oil should be selling for $50.00-55.­00 per barrel based upon current demand..

Google Professor Michael Greenberger or goto search at C-span and or NPR it's a ll there..his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee you can still see that hearing, he rocked..!
.

[jfor]

Ok so now all we have to do is get Chris Mathews to stop being star struck everytime McCain is on his show and begin to do his job questioning instead of cheering. The same goes for all media outlets hold McCain accountable for the crap he says and stop treating him like the maverick he has proven not to be.

[ImissTheCOLDWAR]

Well, if not for the obstructionist policies of the left that the 10-15 year waiting for oil would have already occured 10-15 years ago!...Thu­s new, American produced oil would be flowing NOW. All of the "Green" technologies you are pushing and alternative cars will take time....li­ke 10-15 years for it to be common place if everyone gets on board now.......­.But NO....Both sides will debate this to dealth and only marginal progress will occur because both parties cannot get off the special interest moneys from the Tree huggers on the left and the big business from the right...th­us we all get hosed.....­.

Folks, we cannot totally get off oil. Jets, mass transportation just can't make the change that fast. But Cars, Homes, the daily things we can control is where the battle can be won.

Why not Increase domestic drilling along with more Nuclear Plants AND also just as agressively pursue all of the alternative fues and energies. It seems to me we could drill enough with the help of green/alterantive advancements that in 10-15 years we could potentially be off foriegn oil. If we could just get it down to only needing to buy from Canada and Mexico and not need Arab and Venezuelan oil, the US and its citizens will be the winners.

[theMightyT]

You're missing the bigger picture. And your arguments are bogus.

Other than that tho, you make no sense.

[TonalCrow]

If Reagan hadn't promoted fossil fuels and destroyed incentives for renewables 27 years ago, we might be most of the way to avoiding catastrophic climate change, rather than on the cusp of being too late.

[Seattle34]

Actually, if the left hadn't scared the hell out of everyone over nuclear, and if we were getting 70% of our electricity from nuclear, then we'd have pumped a heck of a lot less CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 30 years.

[theMightyT]

Did you even read the article? The oil companies have permits to drill and they're not doing it. How is that obstructionist? Not to mention - who's been in control of the country for the last 11 years?

Republicans! the RIGHT!!

Geez could you make it a little harder to refute your idiotic arguments?

Republican apoligists have got to post the most un-intelligent rants.... unbelievable.

[RoloTomassi]

Exactly; it's not that they want to drill where there's oil to be had and they have current leases, these are opportunis­tic/predat­ory efforts to take advantage of consumer panic and get at the wilderness areas they've been denied access to!

Let them go drill where they have leases to drill; if they refuse to do so, then that tells you all you need to know about their motivations.

[Mike789]

There are well heads out there capped at $50 mark of profitability.

[RoloTomassi]

Jeez, don't you see the flaw in your own argument? By the time those resources come online, we will be in the stages of trying to switch to alternative fuels, and those areas destroyed by oil exploration and drilling will be screwed up for many decades [if not forever], and the precious oil you'll get won't effect anything that is happening in the meantime.

OIL DRILLING is NOT OIL PRODUCTION; one equals the other once all of the required refineries, equipment and pipelines are in place, and not before. Many deep water wells are sitting capped right now, for that very reason--it's not practical to go after it until enough of them can be tapped at once and pumped through a series of offshore pumping stations that don't yet exist....

There are alternative options that can be pursued right now, but oil company/automaker collusion is holding those options up...why do you think they would do that? Big Oil wants to sell us hydrogen fuel cells, that's why, and if the automakers go along with there plan, that's what will happen.

Then the oil companies will keep on raping consumers for transportation energy, and all of those electric and hybrid electric cars will be in the same trash bin with the trolley cars....

[Viper]

Much of the housing developments and golf courses in Texas and in other areas.. are where there use to be oil drilling. The Golf course I own was once an oil field as was the entire community. It borders a bayou. It was an oil field before the EPA. Things are much better now. Most of the oil drecks have been gone since the 50's. In Califorinia there are oil wells in the basement of building in Century City and people pay big bucks to live there.

I'm All for solar and wind farms. But dont over do the damage argument.

By reducing oil/natural gas usage at this time, you increase the use of coal.. which does more environmenatl damage by far and is far dirtier.


Regards

[TxAggie]

Rolo- chill, there you go again, "those areas destroyed by oil exploration and drilling'? That simply does not happen. Did you watch "There Will Be Blood"? That was a movie!!!

There is a hell of a lot of undrilled potential that can be brought on line relatively quickly it is not all deepwater. By the way, we don't have "pumping stations" offshore, they are called platforms.­..What is your expertise? Its not oil and gas. ........

[Chinampas]

Imiss, you should have written the article instead. Common sense is hard to come by these days.

[sophiekeats]

Thanks for showing us that yet again, McCain's words belie his deeds.

[noneIn2008]

McCain is not straight on anything. But, just like you, he is a politician. Politicians not straight on anything.

[socialdemocracy1968]

Nice one, Senator Kerry. McCain really has sold out to the Republican fringe.

[jethrock]

McWorse -- The One Star Candidate

[lynnn]

Than you John for the heads up.

[white mende man]

Let's just quit beating about the BUSH John McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president of the United States. Americans are sick and tired of the republican name and policies we want November to hurry up and get here so that we can clean the stench that permeates every pore in our skins.

[camaretta]

McCain is such a weak candidate in so many ways as to suggest he is not a real candidate at all. There is a growing feeling that the administration and other radical Republicans just have him in the running as a placeholder until they can pull off some violent or massively clever stunt sometime between now and the election--a great opportunity would be the Democratic convention, where so many high-ranking dems are in the same physical location. The perpetrators would make it look like an outside attack and use it to cancel the elections and declare martial law.

They've already paved the way for this by preparing pseudo-legal documents, and now there are federal military aircraft (not the Colorado National Guard) conducting "exercises" over the physical location in Denver. There are any number of other outrageous scenarios possible for broadsiding the citizenry of the United States and depriving them of lawfully conducted elections. It's been done numerous times since 2000, and the stakes are so much higher now. Everyone should ask themselves what recourse they will have if something happens to the democratic candidates and elections are canceled.

[UnbiasView]

"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."

Might as well start sometime, alternatives are no where close to ready so unless you believe by 2017 we won't need oil . . . what's holding you up?

[white mende man]

It works this way put out a bag of candy in front of a kid then come back after awhile it will all be gone and he'll be wanting more.
Let's do it this way preserve the little we have and come up with alternate energy sources now if in 2017 we still haven't made any progress then we'll use up all the oil (and candy) and be left to walking or peddling our bicycles and that kid can chump on carrots and apples.

[UnbiasView]

Like it or not we will need a lot of oil for at least another 25-30, putting off the inevitable is a stupid policy.

[frumke]

I see three decent reasons to wait.

3. We might get lucky and decide we don't ever need OCS oil. Frankly, I think this is highly unlikely.

2. We may develop drilling methods that are more effective, more efficient, and less risky, in terms of dollars, lives and/or environmental damage.

1. As worldwide oil reserves dwindle, we're going to need our "internal" reserves (including ANWR) for the most critical needs ... production of food and water, homeland defense, etc. We need to save some oil for a stormy day. Compared to Europe, our high gas prices are nothing more than overcast skies.

[UnbiasView]

#1 - Agreed we need internal reserves but what good does that do when we are shipping billions overseas every year, our wealth is being transferred right now and to continue on this path is plain stupid.

#2 - What is so risky to the environment? We saw one of the biggest hurricanes take a bunch of Gulf Coast riggs offline and not a drop spilled.

#3 - Agreed