If you think Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is a straight-talking courageous politician on the issue of global warming, watch this jaw-dropping clip from last night’s Republican presidential debate:

[flv http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ClimateProgress/flv/2008/01/MSNBC_McCain.320.240.flv]

The transcript is online, so we can go through McCain’s entire Orwellian answer to moderator Tim Russert [Note: This was following a question to Giuliani about the global warming threat to Florida and his opposition to mandatory caps, which I'll briefly discuss at the end.]. Russert said, correctly:

Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps.

And, as you’ve seen, McCain immediately answers –

No, I’m in favor of cap-and-trade. And Joe Lieberman and I, one of my favorite Democrats and I, have proposed that — and we did the same thing with acid rain.

And all we are saying is, “Look, if you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, you earn a credit. If somebody else is going to increase theirs, you can sell it to them.” And, meanwhile, we have a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

As a great American once said — you cannot be serious! My jaw dropped (yes, I was watching, and yes, I’m a hardcore political junkie). I know McCain was beaten up in Michigan by Romney for supporting CAFE standards to deal with global warming, and I know “mandates” are as popular with conservatives as taxes are, but this is Romney-esque doubletalk. Europe has a mandate. We dealt with acid rain with a mandate. And McCain’s own climate bill with Lieberman is a mandate.

A straight talker would not use those two wishy-washy “can’s.” Nothing mandatory or threatening to conservatives about “can.” What a wonderful world McCain is imagining: If “somebody else” increases their emissions — not you, of course, you’ll be the one reducing emissions cheaply and getting rich with all the credits — “you can sell it to them.” Well, that is double double-talk.

First, a straight talker would note that the person who increases their emissions must buy a credit (though obviously not necessarily from you). Second, a straight talker would not imply that the point of a cap-and-trade is to allow someone who decreases their emissions to sell credits to someone who increases them — the point is to set the cap well below current levels (as McCain’s own bill does) so that everyone decreases their emissions, but allowing those who can achieve very deep reductions cost-effectively to sell to those who can’t.

If John “Straight Talk” McCain can’t tell conservatives the truth about what this country will need to do to stop catastrophic global warming, who can? Buck up, John — A real man says “mandate.”

The rest of his answer is equally unsettling:

Read more

And we don’t just mean the banter and attacks on integrity and voting records going on in the primary races for the party nominees. There’s also the physical campaign trail, littered with greenhouse gas emissions from traveling across the country and between cities in contested states.

So, meet Standard Carbon LLC, introducing a new effort to get presidential candidates to offset their campaign carbon footprint. The group has created a brand – simply that presidential hopefuls are certifiably Carbon Neutral – it wishes to use to put pressure on the candidates to not only clean their trail but to also prioritize global warming in their policy platforms and rhetoric.

To excerpt their press release:

“If you commit to stand up for what you believe in that means taking personal action first. Climate change depends upon leadership, because cleaning up the air is a non-partisan decision. Our program makes it easy for each campaign to be carbon neutral and allows candidates to lead by example.” Said Brendan Woodward, President of Standard Carbon LLC, a national provider of carbon offset credits and Chicago Climate Exchange member.

Carbon offsets are bought by Carbon Standard, and the initiative is unique to the market because its strictly for political races. Another thing is that only offset projects located in the U.S. can count.

There are, of course, both good and bad attributes to Standard Carbon’s effort. What’s good is that a Carbon Neutral label could become a hot item, with no presidential candidate allowing his/her campaign to continue without one. As a result, global warming receives more attention from these leaders and the pundits.

What’s a bit more worrisome is that offsets are hazy in the first place. The desire to be called Carbon Neutral could easily over ride the actual impact of the offset projects on greenhouse gas emissions. It’s hard to keep offsets transparent, measurable and verifiable. Offsets, too, can be dirty work.

[JR: Another problem is that the offsets are purchased through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which does not have a transparent process for assuring high-quality offests.]

– Kari M.

The oil company with the best strategic planning says the day of reckoning is nigh:

World demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within seven years, according to Royal Dutch Shell.

The oil multinational is predicting that conventional supplies will not keep pace with soaring population growth and the rapid pace of economic development.

Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, said in an e-mail to the company’s staff this week that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. He wrote: “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.”

I am a tad surprised that Shell doesn’t understand just how much global warming will overwhelm all other concerns:

Read more