The McCain Campaign's Dirty Record on Clean Energy

In part two of Sarah Palin's interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, she gives lipstick-y lip service to the notion that human beings may, in fact, be contributing to climate change. What a difference a month (and a nomination) makes! 'Cause back in August, before John McCain singled Palin out as our nation's foremost expert on energy, Alaska's climate change denier-in-chief told Newsmax.com that "I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made."

Hey, Sarah, great to see that you're not afraid to peel off the pumps and dip your toe into the reality-based community! If the reception seems a little chilly, well, chalk it up to your party's shrill Drill, Baby, Drill mantra, your God-endorsed pipeline project, your anti-polar bear agenda, and your work husband's lousy record when it comes to actually supporting alternative forms of energy.

The Straight Talk Express may have hit one pothole too many on the low road to the White House; are the wheels coming off the bus? The MSM, from Krugman to the AP, is finally exposing many of the McCain campaign's most egregious lies without mincing words.

But when it comes to dealing with climate change, McCain's still benefitting from the perception that he's been more progressive than the fossil fueled fossils that fill his party's ranks. Thanks to some sleuthing on the part of clean energy activist Susan Kraemer, though, we now have proof that when it comes to voting to support renewable energy, McCain's no better than James "Global Warming Is A Hoax" Inhofe.

Kraemer tallied up McCain's votes and found that McCain has "voted consistently against government support of solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, ocean and any other clean energy, with the exception of being strongly for nuclear power." Hey, nuclear families, nuclear power, it's all good. Whatever.

Maybe it's kind of age-ist for us to expect a geezer like McCain to grasp the potential for new technologies to solve our energy woes; after all, as the latest ad from the Obama campaign notes, he has yet to master the art of the email. Feisty, Facebook-savvy Palin, on the other hand, is presumably up to speed on cutting edge solutions--after all, wasn't Senator Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens a mentor of hers, back when the Bridge To Nowhere was her ticket to ride?

And yet, despite this energy hog's judicious application of lipstick, it's clear that "pitbull" Palin routinely pits economic growth against environmental preservation. The day before John McCain selected her as his veep, our gutsy Governor from Alaska penned a letter to fellow Governor Schwarzenegger strenuously protesting the Governator's proposal to impose a fee on the cargo containers that move more than 40% of the nation's goods through the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "The fees would raise $400 million annually for such pollution-reduction projects as installing cleaner-burning truck and train engines and building roadways under or over railroad tracks to avoid long lines of idling vehicles."

State Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) sponsored the bill in the hopes of reducing the number of Californians killed by air pollution, estimated to be some 3,400 annually.

Palin objects to the proposal on the grounds that it will raise the cost of goods shipped to Alaska, where, as the Times notes, many communities "lack road access and depend entirely on goods shipped by container, something that has significantly increased in cost in recent years."

So I guess Palin's m.o. is to choose life, unless it's going to hit her constituents in the pocketbook. If you're unlucky enough to live near the ports of California, Palin's message seems to be "suck it up." A change of heart on climate change that we can believe in? If you buy that, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

Comments

[jadeba]

Here's a link to an extensive record of what Mc has done for oil and not done for alternative energy. Nada!

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/mccain_gw_record.html

[alvdh1]

McCain has attained a lofty 24% rating with the League of Conservation Voters while Biden and Obama are in the mid 80's. In the race to the climate change tipping point, McCain wins hands down. Of course he wont be aorund to see how his lack of enthusiam on the issue will play out.

[BottomLine2008]

McCain refuses to vote to extend the renewable energy tax credits. He can't be against climate change with that BS.

[idyl]

This is a key issue to me, and where I think the media and campaigns should focus their attention. Can we afford turning over our energy future to oil insiders and lobbyists once again? Energy touches on nearly every critical issue in the election: health care, jobs, deficits, transportation, housing, trade, food, global instability, and more. And where has the last eight years got us? McCain has an abysmal record on clean and alternative energy reforms, and Palin stands as a "special interest" candidate advocating for oil and gas benefits to her constituents in Alaska. Alaska is swimming in oil wealth, and the Midwest is crying out for reform and green collar jobs, training and workforce development (as a pathway out of poverty), and reconstruction of local communities and public infrastructure. The choice between the candidates couldn't be more clear.

[JoBanana]

WOW!

I went and read through all those 50 rollcall votes against clean energy in that post at matternetwork, and there is a youtube link in the post as well of

McCain just casually saying that "clean energy like solar and wind will not solve climate change".

He says " its nice to buy a solar panel as a Christmas present for your family, thats nice, but thats all "
kind of the same as Cheney's famous line "conservation is a personal virtue, but thats all"

[Maezeppa]

PALIN DID NOT CHANGE POSITION - what she said was that man's activities contributed to the ISSUE of climate change, global warming. Get it? It's like saying man's activities have contributed to the debate on the existence of tooth fairies - it doesn't make tooth fairies real.

This is exactly the kind of parsing that makes Karl Rove ecstatic - the public misses it and the right wingers snicker at how they got over on us yet again.

[DoTheMath]

Population of Alaska: 670,053
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

Population of California: 36,457,549
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Sorry, Sarah, sometimes size does matter. You lose.

[sdslaw]

Palin is scary, as is McCain's judgment. But the most horrifying aspect of this Palin-mania is that so many people are flocking to this pair. If they manage to win start digging your bunker.

[Bilbot]

Haven't heard a lot about the city Palin was mayor of CHARGING RAPE VICTIMS FOR THE TEST KITS!

[BruceMcF]

This is not fair to other cities in Alaska. She was the mayor of the ONLY CITY in Alaska charging rape victims for the forensic kits required to prosecute the crime. Of course, she is oppose to abortion in the case of rape, so at least she is consistent in defending the rights of rapists ... to walk around free, and to force women to bear their children.

The Alaskan legislature was forced to make it illegal to charge for these kits to change this policy IN PRECISELY Mayor Palin's city.

[mamacat]

I am still trying to get my head around the idea that someone, anyone, could choose the rights of the rapist over those of the one raped.

So far, the only thing that makes any sense, although not enough to actually be sensible, is that Alaska is so short of people, that they don't want to lose even one potential new warm body, even if it means women have to be raped to provide one.
What other logic could be at work here?
Actually, it is probably fairer to say that there is no logic at work in this case, and Palin's reasoning is probably based on some weird interpretation of religous doctrine. Certainly not the religion that I was raised with, though.