[Our guest blogger is Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.]
Republican Presidential nominee apparent John McCain brags about his leadership on climate change. He even taunted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when he said:
I don’t know what their position is because I haven’t seen them show any particular commitment in the U.S. Senate or elsewhere [on climate change]. I have proposed legislation and fought for amendments.
With all of his bragging about global warming, you would think Sen. McCain would [have been] at the center of this week’s Senate’s debate over the Climate Security Act, sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and John Warner (R-VA). Unfortunately, he [didn't] participate in the debate, and opposed the bill because it lacked big bucks to build nuclear power plants.
How come the Straight Talk Express can’t find the U.S. Senate for this critical debate?
Is it because Sen. McCain has received more money from the special interests that oppose this bill than all but one other member of the Senate?
He has received over $2 million from oil, coal, utility, auto, chemical and nuclear companies from the 1990 cycle to the first quarter of 2008. In fact, of this total, McCain received nearly two-thirds of it — $1.2 million — since he began his presidential quest 18 months ago. And like Senator McCain, these interests and the trade associations they fund oppose the Climate Security Act.
Since McCain began running for president in 2007, he missed all the important clean energy votes. He did make sure to wink at big oil by announcing he would have supported its existing unjustified tax breaks had he been around. The bipartisan effort to close these loopholes failed by one vote. And after he missed the opportunity to become the deciding vote to extend tax incentives for efficiency and wind and solar power by adding it to the stimulus package, he gave a nod to big coal and huge utility conglomerates by announcing he would have opposed this measure too.
Sen. McCain plans to use his support for reductions in global warming pollution as a central element in his effort to distinguish himself from President Bush. On June 3rd, he proclaimed, “The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his.” But Sen. McCain is a leader in campaign donations from the same interests who helped Bush write his energy plan that brought us $4 gallon gasoline. And like the Bush administration, he also opposes the Climate Security Act.
Frequently, Sen. McCain has lectured his colleagues about the corrupting nature of campaign contributions and lobbyists. He preached that “Our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.” A large part of his reputation as a “maverick” rests on this issue. Yet his campaign is run by lobbyists. And he has received more campaign cash from big energy companies than 98 other senators, and then joins their opposition to the Climate Security Act. Sen. McCain appears to be nothing more than another senator influenced by special interests — a prime example of the Washington influence system that he bemoans.
Read the full report — PACing Away the Climate Security Act?
Hat tip to The Wonk Room.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Thanks for the data from the real world. Odd how the MSM ignores this stuff.
But, as Adamas said, facts are such inconvenient things. In this case, they reveal the straight talk express to be fueled by oil, coal, and nukes. Axis of evil, indeed.
Maybe McCain is really astride the Money Talks to Excess express.
You are spreading disinformation. McCain stated he would have voted for cloture and like Clinton and Obama pledged would have left the campaign trail to vote if there were 57other votes. Compare the McCain record on corn ethanol to Obama’s.
If you were really interested in preventing the end of creation catastrophe you predict, you would drop these irrelevant political posts and the denier baiting fringes of the science posts to focus on what you have repeatedly advocated: Immediate deployment of available technologies and efficiencies along with regulation minimally disruptive, but enough to do the job.
Cloture ain’t support.
He wanted unnecessary nuclear pork. And he gets big bucks from the energy industry. Hmmm…..
Doesn’t matter how you mince words, McCain is clearly the choice for climate voters. It’s time to cut the song and dance on nuclear, Joe. You say you are for nuclear even if it is only 10% but you sledgehammer others who are for it. Either it is a wedge or it isn’t. As an old fashioned environmentalist, I’d be perfectly happy in a non nuclear world. I’m unconvinced the waste can be properly handled. Calling any investment in non carbon energy pork is counterproductive rhetoric.
Paul:
Such an intense response is positively Shakespearian, as in methinks thou dost protest too much.
McCain says he’s against mandatory cuts in carbon but for a cap and trade. Huh?
I believe he is convinced global warming is a problem, but he’s just too Republican to swallow the solution — government.
If you’ve read his statements on climate, and compared that to what Obama has said and what’s in his energy plan, there’s no way you could call him “the choice for climate voters.”
As for calling political posts irrelevant and calling for Joe to drop the denier-baiting — well, climate is a political issue for two reasons. First, it demands a political solution, and second, Republican deniers have intentionally obfuscated the debate.
Doubt that? Just read the memo distributed by McConnell to the Republicans talking about politicizing the debate on the Bill.
Wake up, Paul. It’s time to cut the song and dance about this being a non-partisan issue — the Repubs and their industry owners have made it a political issue, funding a sophisticated disinformation campaign, muzzling government scientists and distorting and censuring scientific studies by NASA, NOAA, USGS, and EPA.
And nukes are a distraction. By the time any got built, we’d be well over 400 PPM.
Indeed, one wonders why they’re so popular with the Republicans. My own sense is that nukes support the existing centralized power markets, which essentially give monopoly franchises to industry, while distributed generation and efficiency democratize power generation.
But all that aside, go beyond McCain’s rhetoric and if you’re objective you’ll see he doesn’t have a clue. Either that, or he’s sold his soul to the fossil fuel folks.
Either way, he’s not the answer, he’s the problem.
So I guess he was either lying or misinformed when he told a town hall in New Hampshire: “Everybody says that they’re against the special interests. I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to.”
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/straight-talk-part-i.html
john,
Government is not the solution. Immediate deployment of technologies and efficiencies to replace carbon based fuels is the solution.
I think people will compare the rhetoric of Obama to the record of McCain and decide. Good luck to both candidates.
In civics class we learned that all public issues are political. It is right that what, if anything, to do about climate is in part a political decision. The hyper partisanship in your comment is the counterproductive tactic of the delayer. You must not have noticed the the era negative politics is over. Obama is the candidate beyond politics. McCain has come down hard who have run attack ads. In both party primaries, candidates perceived as going negative did not fair well.
Paul:
Did you miss the hearings last week? And just how do you expect “immediate deployment of technologies and efficiencies” to occur without government?
We’ve been waiting for the free market to spontaneously deliver these sane alternatives for longer than O’Neill waited for Godot.
Just as we waited for it to stop polluting that led to burning rivers, black skies, 155 dead zones in the Ocean … on and on.
Here’s a news flash for you, Paul — without bad ol’ big Gub, we’d still be waiting.
Industry makes a profit — that’s their job, and it’s all they will do; government sets boundary conditions that prevent it from consuming the Commons. Love it or hate it, no entity other than government can or will do this.
If I’m hyper-partisan, it’s because recently Republicans have stone-walled every rational and critically needed market intervention you could possibly think of and allowed industry to liquidate the earth.
And how do you translate discussing Republican delaying tactics as a tactic of the delayer? Are you just trying the Karl Rove strategy of saying things are the opposite of what they are — the really big lie, the super spin, something so profoundly bizarre people will just have to believe it?
Good grief man, do you suppose Mitch McConnell and the rest of the filibusters (Republicans, every last one) will suddenly start behaving rationally if we only stop exposing their perfidy?
Finally, it is not an attack ad or even negative to expose a politician’s position. In fact, it’s called democracy, and it’s precisely why the Founders gave the press certain protections under the First Amendment. They thought the press would inform people, and they thought people had a right to know the positions of those running for and holding office.
Transparency isn’t negative — unless your candidates are running around in the dark and taking cash; misrepresenting their positions, and dishonestly twisting the debates and discourses that underpin democracy.
john,
There were no hearings last week. It was floor debate and voting. Your lack of understanding of the legislative process is not surprising. Please note that ten democratic senators including Carl Levin stated their opposition to the bill. Industry is already providing technologies and efficiencies. It is not government that is creating hybrid and plug in vehicles. Wind and solar energy production is doubling every several years.
You are also misstating my position. I said that government is not the solution, not that it doesn’t have a role. I have laid out a cap/trade scheme far superior than the tax grab cap/trade in name only mess that is B-L-W, one that would actually create a deployment promoting market. I have proposed other government actions including procurement measures and elimination of capital gains taxes on alternatives investment. You offer inane conspiracy theories.
And yes, wasting time on a unpassable, unsignable bill and the partisan kerfluffel around it is delaying of the first order.
@paul: california regulations, along with federal and state subsidies, over the last 15-20 years, have clearly played a role in bringing gas/hybrid cars to the US.
hapa,
I’ve no problem with reasoned regulation, subsidies and other economic incentives. In fact, it reinforces my argument that lowering the cost of incentives is much more effective in promoting deployment than raising the price of fossil.
Oops. That should be “lowering the cost of alternatives.”
Paul K says, “Government is not the solution.” but then says “I’ve no problem with reasoned regulation, subsidies and other economic incentives.” That sure sounds like government is part of the solution. Or did you mean non-governmental rgulations? ;-)
Take a quick look at what government can do by considering the California record:
* Pass appliance efficiency standards (Title 20) and continually update them
* Pass building efficiency standards (Title 24) and continually update them
* Decouple utility profits from revenue to make them negawatt champions
* Pass a 20% renewable energy by 2010 requirement (SB 107)
* Set a limit on GHG from individual power plants (SB 1368)
* Set a cap on statewide greenhouse gas emissions (AB32) with the cap declining
* Create passenger vehicle standards that gave us hybrids and electric cars (with unfortunate backtracking on the latter)
* Set efficiency standards for passenger vehicles (AB 1493) and sue the Federal government to force action
* Enact solar incentives (many, most recently SB 1)
* Enact solar water heating incentives (AB 1470)
* Create a Low Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles already on the road
* Look at a myriad of small items that can add up (e.g. using shore power for ships in port, getting truckers to not idle at truck stops, reducing need for A/C in cars through cool paints, and so on)
This list is not complete, but should be illustrative.
It’s not an either or situation. I can think of and have suggested lots of things government can and should do. To me the solution is replacing fossil fuels. It’s a 50+ year process. Government is part of the process, but it is the people – who’s will is often reflected in government action – and the private sector that effects change. Government moves slowly, unreliably and often with unintended consequences. As a Cub fan, I’m very familiar with the wait until next year mentality which is all one gets by relying on government.
Paul:
You are right that it was a floor debate, not a hearing — although similar tactics were used by Republicans in Committee. Second, I do understand the legislative process — I’ve written legislation. Trying to discredit folks you disagree with is another Rovian — vaguely ad hominum attack, resorted to by folks who don’t have any real ammo.
Third, while a few Dems opposed the legislation, none filibustered, as I said, they were all Repubs.
Fourth, the regenerative braking system that is at the heart of hybrids — in fact most of hybrid technology — did come from government. DOE to be precise.
Fifth, wind and solar technology was incubated and refined in DOE labs, and they are doubling every few years because the federal government has given them tax credits, and the state governments have passed RPS standards.
Finally, the only reason the Bill was unpassable was because the Republicans stood against it in lock step. See, Paul, it was only a waste of time because the Republicans intentionally made it so.
That’s what delaying looks like.
I notice you never address the McConnell memo — you know, the one where Repugs plotted their delaying tactics and their intent to politicize the debate? Until you do explain that, your bizzarro accusations labeling me and others as delayers looks an awful lot like an irrational rant of a die-hard free marketeer.
And for the record, I wasn’t a big fan of this bill — not enough government intervention for my blood.
Earl Killian,
Most of your list falls under what I would call reasoned regulation, improved efficiencies or serve to lower the cost of deployment. They all fit within the limited government model.
One other thing, Paul. When you explain the McConnell memo, please also explain how requiring the clerks to read the bill out loud — a 9 hour marathon – was not delaying.
And please also explain whether — when you denied the fundamental role government played in developing and deploying hybrid, wind, and solar technology — it was because you simply didn’t know any better, or whether you were … ahem … being selective in your recall.
Thanks, and I look forward to your response.
john,
What level of government intervention would please you?
Sorry, but I have to address one more comment of yours Paul. “Government moves slowly …”
Look, within 6 months of entering the war, Roosevelt had completely turned our economy around and we were cranking out ships, planes, tanks and guns. (and yes, it was government that forced and managed this amazing feat)
Bush, 5 years after entering a war, can’t even turn out armored personnel carriers and body armor.
The point is, government is about as efficient as you want it to be. If you start with the premise that it can’t do anything well or fast, you’ll be right. If you start with the premise that it is vital and must be made to work, you’ll also be right.
Bad-mouthing big gubmint has always been a tactic used by the powerful in the economy to keep government relatively less powerful so that they might have their way, unopposed. You know, like $4.00 a gallon gas; a growing GDP and an exploding top 1% of earners with flat wages for the rest? that kind of thing.
It began in the 1860s, but didn’t get much traction for most of our history until Reagan — when a large portion of folks got duped.
As Earl points out, government can and has moved with alacrity and effectiveness. Indeed, when California passed a poorly thought out deregulation bill ENRON — that paradigm of private sector efficiency — was thoroughly exploiting Californians. Meanwhile, government moved with great speed to serve the public interest and restore a sane — and regulated energy market.
Facts. So hard on blind ideology.
john,
The Democrats used the same delaying tactics when they were the minority. It’s how the Senate works (or doesn’t work. I think we both agree that the modern filibuster rules ain’t real good). As I understand it, the forced reading of the bill had more to do with judges. I’ll have to do some studying before assessing the role of DOE in tech development. I certainly have no objection to government funded research.
john,
The Roosevelt example illustrates an area where I think the government could do a lot more – procurement. Rather than waste time on flawed unpassable legislation, why not simply appropriate a billion dollars a year to purchase American made hybrids? Easily enacted, easily implemented and has a direct impact on emissions, it’s win-win.
Paul:
Why bring up judges in a climate debate, unless you’re trying to delay? And yeah, it’s a tactic, but my beef isn’t with the tactic, it’s the fact that the Repubs chose to use it to delay climate stuff.
What level of government intervention?
A ban on all new coal generation effective immediately, and a phase out of any coal generation not practicing CC&S by 2050.
A set of increasingly stringent efficiency standards for new buildings and appliances — moving to near net zero carbon by 2025 —
A program requiring audits and efficiency upgrades of 25% for existing homes upon sale, with low cost guaranteed loans for retrofits (with low cost guaranteed loans and lengthy amortization, home owners would actually save money in such a scheme).
An increasingly stringent mileage standard on all vehicles (not a Cafe standard) starting with 60 mpg in 2020 and going up to 100 or more by 2030; A buy-back program to retire SUVs and other low-mileage vehicles.
a cap on carbon emissions with no kick-outs reflecting the scientific consensus for avoiding catastrophe –which is 80% below 1990 levels.
Forward capacity auctions for all new generation decisions, putting efficiency and new generation on an equal footing.
Aggressive, national RPS standards.
Establishment of an National Energy Trust — which like the Highway trust fund would be funded with small tariffs on energy — which would build or fund a national DC grid capable of moving renewable energy from geographic areas that favor its generation to areas which use it, as well as a regional and local smart grid designed to handle DEG and load management techniques.
A FERC-administered dispatch model based on carbon, not price.
That’s the level of government intervention that would suit me, Paul. Why? Because climate change is a threat bigger than any humanity has ever faced with the possible exception of an all-out nuclear war.
It may be time for me to switch to decaffeinated.
john,
Stick with the caffeine. It’s one of the last wonderful but not so good for you things we’ve got. I have to actually go do some work, will pick up on this later.