|
||
Palin Shocker: McCain Won't Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Voters who care about either global warming or clean energy have only one choice -- and it isn't McCain-Palin.
It's time to stop trying to guess whether the latest McCain campaign gaffe revision on global warming means the Arizonan has walked away from his previous support for mandatory government control of greenhouse gases. He has.
That should have been clear from McCain's repeated rejection of the word "mandatory" to describe his program, his choice of a global warming denier for vice president, and his failure to even mention global warming during his acceptance speech. Most recently, his chief economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said on Sunday that McCain does not agree with the Supreme Court decision that labels carbon dioxide a pollutant and requiring EPA to regulate it. He labels Obama's decision to obey the Supreme Court decision "a draconian regulatory approach."
Now the McCain campaign has decided to eliminate the ambiguity entirely in the desperate and erratic final days of his campaign. In her big greenwashing energy speech at an Ohio solar energy company, Palin was as blunt as possible in her prepared (and delivered) remarks:
And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders that they must follow -- "so says government".
The final three words were ones she added, but the prepared text alone leaves no room for doubt. A McCain-Palin administration will not be issuing new orders that businesses must follow to control greenhouse gas emissions. It will use a voluntary or incentive-based approach, one that has never worked in any country to restrain emissions growth.
McCain and his campaign have made a concerted effort to reassure conservatives he's not going to take strong action on climate, while hoping that moderates would be fooled just like some Bush voters were in 2000 ignore all this talk, which itself is a core campaign strategy of doubletalk (see "Memo to media: McCain doubletalks to woo conservatives and independents at the same time").
The Palin speech was the last piece of the puzzle. For one last time, let's consider the increasingly sorry history of the McCain campaign on climate and clean energy:
- During his career, McCain voted with Senator Inhofe (R-OK) and against clean energy a staggering 42 out of 44 times in the past two decades (see "The greenwasher from Arizona has a record as dirty as the denier from Oklahoma").
- In December, anti-wind McCain skipped a vote to extend tax credits for renewable energy, though advisers say he would have voted against it.
- In January, McCain first boarded his Double-Talk Express on Global Warming when he began to walk away from calling his cap-and-trade "mandatory" -- "voluntary" climate action is of course the core of the Luntz/Bush do-nothing but sound-like-you-care strategy.
- In February, he repeated his failure to show up for a vote to extend tax credit for renewable energy (the only Senator to do so).
- In February, McCain repeated that "It's not quote mandatory caps."
- In March, his senior economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said McCain "might take [new CAFE standards] off the books."
- April, McCain revealed cynicism, hypocrisy with call for summer gas-tax holiday, energy budget freeze. As I noted at the time, "the greatest threat to the success of a cap and trade system is that somebody might artificially limit the carbon price ... because some weak-kneed President (or Congress) walks away from that price the first time the economy suffers a downturn. McCain would appear to be that weak-kneed Presidential hopeful."
- In mid-May, McCain announced the details of his climate plan, which stunningly allowed "unlimited offests" (i.e. phony tons) in place of actual domestic emissions reductions, which is the same as "Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."
- In late May, he "announced he won't even bother showing up to vote on his friend Joe Lieberman's climate bill."
- In June, he flipflopped on offshore oil drilling and even embraced "more traditional use of coal," an embrace of higher greenhouse gas emissions that is Bush-lite, crude, and not sweet.
- In July, he released his "Jobs for America" plan with so little on energy efficiency that it suggests he would be Cheney's third term!
- Again in July, National Review reported that cap and trade was "eradicated" from McCain campaign, according to comments from a "senior McCain official."
- At the end of July, McCain economic adviser Steve Forbes said, "I think cap and trade is going to go the way of some other things," and it won't "get far" under McCain.
- The 72-year-old McCain named a global warming denying, Big Oil Super-Shill as his Vice President
- His much anticipated acceptance speech never once mentioned the gravest threat facing the health and well-being of the nation and the world.
- He has been running a campaign ad that appears to attack the very idea of cap-and-trade.
- His chief economic adviser said this week that McCain won't obey the Supreme Court decision requiring the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
- And in text prepared by the campaign, his vice presidential running mate said today that a McCain-Palin administration will not be issuing new orders that businesses must follow to control greenhouse gas emissions, but instead will be adopting an incentive-based (i.e. voluntary) approach.
Remember, it was Bush's Vice President, Dick Cheney, who called Bush's promised to regulate utility carbon emissions "a mistake" in March 2001, and Cheney is probably the main reason Bush walked away from his commitment.
So perhaps we should start listening to McCain's VP choice, as well as McCain himself, and all of his advisers, on climate and clean energy issues.
If you care about global warming, the gravest preventable threat to the health and well-being of all Americans, and if you care about clean energy, the greatest potential source of new jobs and new industries in the coming decades, then you must vote Obama-Biden.
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
Only McCain could so brazenly say that obeying a Supreme Court decision is "a draconian regulatory approach."
McCain is dangerously in the pocket of corporate interests...which seems to be the overwhelming case with "conservative" Republicans these days.
Not that Democrats are never in someone's pocket...just usually not as deep.
Considering the current economic weakness and the possibility of higher energy prices in years ahead, we can't be focusing on environmental issues. Those issues can wait until the economy revives and the consumer is in better position to pay higher energy prices. Too many folks are misguided by the idea that burning cleaner coal is going to have any more than a very very minimal affect on the climate. I think the energy issue trumps the environmental issue by a substantial margin, and we need to be utilizing our abundant coal resources to a much greater extent.
Denmark and Germany built significant new industries around clean energy, especially wind.
If we don't start acting on greenhouse gas emissions right away the economy will go into the next upturn on the same dirty basis as before, namely coal and oil.
The reduced energy consumption during a recession gives us a chance to get rid of some of the worst polluters or shut them down temporarily to install cleaner tech or filters.
A program to replace old coal plants with renewable energy and nuclear needs to start now. It will be years until it goes into the implementation phase anyway. I don't like nuclear but it's our only option for the base load right now if we want to stop burning coal. hopefully fusion will be an option in 10 or 20 years. Oh, and the US might want to invest in energy research like fusion again. The Bushies all but shut down all research.
If we embrace wind, solar and biodiesel on a large scale, and government teams with private research and industry to expand this technology across the board, then we will have a viable and profitable new economy that is part of a prosperous and sustainable future.
Talking about environment IS talking about energy. And talking about energy IS talking about environment, make no mistake.
When we look at both with an eye toward sustainability and future growth potential, than we will build a healthy economy. An economy based not on the deficit spending of our fiscal and natural resources, but based on the balanced and continued growth of those resources.
That is where Obama wants to take us. To do anything else, like place short-term financial woes over long-term existential woes, lacks integrity in every way.
This story needs to be posted on the front page of the Huffington Post...as not all readers will go to the GREEN Page...but this is an that all those who have not voted need to be aware of. Those "undecided" voters need to be sure that they know all the facts and this is a critical issue that needs to be included in the dialogue.
This is another GOP "gotcha"...so some clever blogger please get this moved! Thanks
Palin is so insipid, without Government regulation/intervention corporations would run wild with no concern for who got hurt. Corporate greed trumps any sort of human concern...profit, baby, profit.
Thirty-thousand American scientists agree that carbon emissions are not a serious threat. It is certainly something to consider.
http://petitionproject.org/
Why would scientists outside of climate research be qualified to make an assessment of the seriousness of climate change?
The vast majority of climate researchers has a different opinion.
So much for "John the Regulator, despite consistently voting for deregulation"
Looks like The Straight Talk Express just lost another wheel, providing that it still has any.
So if you really think carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of "Global Warming" why do you keep on exhaling it?
how many wheels did that thing have??? It's been losing wheels and blowing gaskets (and big-oil) for months!!
thank you for that excellent list -- just the kind of thing one needs to counter serious-minded people on the other side.
Our planet is not a dumping ground Sarah....this is a disaster just like Bush not agreeing to the Kyoto treaty. Lord help us and our planet !!!
Do you not understand that every new statistic shows that the world is cooling?
Warming, cooling, doing a jig around the sun! What difference does it make? It's this mindset that just curtails best practices, be they moral, financial, or just generally responsible.
This is our world, and the only one we've got. Will it be around long after I'm gone? Sure- I hope. But I'd just as soon leave it in better condition as I entered into it, rather than continue to ignore the problems we're facing.
You can't pick and choose the statistics that support your position. Our air quality s*cks, as does water and soil. These things together lay the ground work for crop production and, just in case you haven't been paying attention, a lot of these "new" medical conditions that are being identified are being attributed to pollution.
So take off the blinders, think in more general terms, and do your part to make it a better world.
Well said and I guess it is just luck that we are all living longer?
As a predictable (and predicted) result of the polar ice caps melting and cooling the oceans. A temporary effect until that water heats back up from increased absorbtion of heat from the sun. Then there will be no ice caps left ot cool the polar regions and reflect sunlight, the oceans will be larger and higher and will absorb even more heat.
You're kidding, right? Melting ice has more of a cooling effect than frozen ice?
Put your well-being where your weird science is. Make a little boat of ice and put your body in it and put the boat in the water where the dying polar bears are circling the vanishing ice is and hang on. With our scientific data -- the real stuff, not the faux stuff you learned at church -- we'll be pulling for you.
Try standing next to a thousands year old glacier off Antarctica and see how lucky you are.
I just read the entire text of her speech.
She actually gave a speech at a solar power company and pushed for 1) drilling for more oil, 2) nuclear, 3) the cruel myth that is "clean coal". She said that "someday" solar power will make a difference - sounding like she would prefer that to be far off in the future.
Un-Be-Lieve-Able !!
If I was an employee at that solar plant, I would be outraged!
I'm sure they left stunned....and further resolved to vote for Obama. :o)
Their nuclear agenda is as frightening as it is ignorant.
What did she mean when she said "We must regulate new hazards"?
She also seems surprised and confused when she said "Drill, baby,Drill" and no one started to chant
http://www.sundaram-art.com does have all your original Opma portraits
shan the artist
Dear Joseph,
I'm glad to see someone is back on the issues. Deregulation in banking? Look where that has left us. Deregulation with corporations and pollution? I saw what happened in the 70's when the laws were not on the books and enforced with companies near the great lakes the chemical toxic dumping and pollution took decades and billions of tax dollars to clean up. Now nursing homes and hospitals are dumping drugs into our drinking water. Deregulation in the livestock and butchering practices? The lack of surveillance and deregulation has led to horrific examples of animal abuse, hormone injections, animals that are dead long before they are "slaughtered", and animals being sprayed with substances that we will ingest. Face it. Deregulation doesn't work. We need enforceable laws and enough law enforcement officials and attorneys (yes them too) to ensure a clean environment, responsible banking practices and safe food to eat and a government starting with the President who understands that enforceable laws are necessary.
Of course deregulation works.
It works to enrich corporations whose only goal is to make more profit.
But we can't blame the corporations. They are only following the law of the jungle.
Live and let die.
Oh wait, I forgot, western culture is "civilized".
Let's try again.
Of course deregulation works.
It works to enrich corporations whose only goal is to make more profit.
But we can't blame the corporations. They are only following the law of the jungle.
Live and let d-i-e.
Oh wait, I forgot, western culture is "civilized".
I'm pretty sure than over-regulation caused the banking crisis. It's nice social policy to extend credit to those with bad credit, but giving them prime interest rates is dangerously inconsistent with the risk associated with those borrowers. Government completely underestimated this risk, and as a result of this we have a ridiculously sluggish flow of capital.
University of Michigan Law Professor Michael Barr, a specialist in banking and finance law, flatly rejected claims that the CRA was "a significant factor in the current crisis. CRA was enacted more than 30 years ago. It would be quite odd if this 30-year old law suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002-2007....Subprime mortgages were mostly made by mortgage brokers and lenders and securitized by investment banks -- institutions not covered by CRA,"
In other words the better-regulated loans were not the problem.
For another perspective http://www.worldreports.org/news
Just outta curiosity....when did "be ludicrously evil" become the main plank in the GOP platform?
Her energy policy speech was as empty as her 5000 dollar suits.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
