McCain urges free-market principles to reduce global warming

[875000]

McCain urges free-market principles to reduce global warming

PHOENIX (AP) — Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction — toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain. "Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world."

The Arizona senator promised to challenge China and India, two economic rivals that are fueling their challenge to U.S. market supremacy with heavily polluting fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

"For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China's skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding and its own glaciers melting," said McCain.

He also took a swipe at President Bush, who balked at the beginning of his first term at signing the Kyoto global warming protocols. McCain said he would return to the negotiating table.

"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach — an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation," he said.

The language highlighted the political stakes for McCain, his party's presumed nominee. His visit to Oregon came just days after the two leading Democratic contenders, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, campaigned in the state.

Oregon is among the expected general election battlegrounds, and its Columbia and Hood rivers are playgrounds for many outdoorsmen and environmentalists.

Global warming also stands with abortion rights and an array of social causes as important issues to the evangelicals and Christian conservatives whom McCain hopes will bolster his political base this fall.

Democrats derided McCain's record on the issue, noting contributions to his campaign from energy lobbyists, his recent proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax as a means of making driving cheaper and some votes against alternate energy sources.

"Senator McCain's campaign rhetoric on the environment means nothing when he's willing to give his donors sweetheart deals and appoint right wing judges bent on gutting environmental regulations, which is one more reason he is the wrong choice for America's future," said a statement from Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

McCain has long expressed a belief in global warming, arguing that even if he is wrong, acting as if the planet's temperature were increasing would only benefit the environment if scientists subsequently proved he was mistaken.

McCain traveled to the Pacific Northwest from Arizona, where he and his family spent Mother's Day.

In his speech, he highlighted his personal experiences viewing evidence of glacial recession. He also cited evidence of a shift in animal migration patterns.

"You would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well," he said.

McCain's major solution is to implement a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions, like a similar program in the Clean Air Act that was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that triggered acid rain.

Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target.

McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050.

"As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt — and that is good economic policy."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1lnDN47XfRwq7TtD30hwUCcb6JgD90K6AGO0

[longshot]

Thanks for posting this. Interesting read.

I guess I have a few things to say. I hope I don't take this in too many directions...

The article brings up the Clean Air Act, and points to its success. The cap-and-trade program worked because acid rain is a localized problem. You can make it prohibitively expensive for companies to use shit technology that doesn't remove enough pollution. Or, with enough regulation, you can just have another country make the pollution intensive thing and import it.

Carbon is different though... it's not localized. The global contribution is what matters. The Kyoto Protocol exempts India and China from quotas, so it's understandable why it failed. It's stupid to think that somehow tweaking the Clean Air Act in the US is going to curb a worldwide issue. You need some type of global agreement.

Under any system of control, there's going to be set level of carbon emission. So the question of "what's fair?" has to come up. If you take the US and Euro area as developed, and China and India as developing, how do you allocate the credits? Do you put the burden on the countries that have been able to pollute for a long time and have already finished building their infrastructure? Or do you put it on the ones that are the biggest polluters now as they catch up to other nations? How will population determine credit allocation? Wealth? Output? These need answering.

Another thing that's worth mentioning... with an established market for carbon emissions, you're also setting prices for removing carbon from the atmosphere. While the technology isn't there yet, it might become easier to take carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than limit how much crap goes into it.

It's likely that any legislation won't have much of an effect on corporate profits. Consumers will end up paying for it.

[ClydeR]

Another perspective.


McCain, who once admitted that he “doesn’t really understand economics,” claimed the solution to the “looming threat” of climate change is to “unleash the power and innovation of the marketplace.”

Unfortunately, McCain’s plan fails to free anything. In fact, his big government climate policy would mitigate not global warming but economic growth.

Some background: Four years ago, Senator McCain co-sponsored—with the then-Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut—the Climate Stewardship Act, a so-called “cap and trade” program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Act was updated in 2007, and is now one of several cap and trade proposals being debated in Congress.

Like all cap and trade policies, this would require central planning of the economy. Starting in 2012, the government would assign emissions quotas (caps) to thousands of industrial users and suppliers of energy. Because emissions are synonymous with energy use, McCain’s climate plan would be America’s first energy rationing program since the oil crises of the early 1970s.

Businesses would receive part of their emissions rations free of charge, but they would have to purchase the rest from a government-run auction. Over time, emissions quotas would get smaller, until 2050, when aggregate emissions are capped at about a third of what they are now.

As the cap shrinks, companies would have to find new ways to cut their carbon footprint. In any given year, if a company’s emissions exceed its quota, it could avoid a penalty by purchasing surplus emission rights from a business that beat its target.

McCAIN BRAGS ABOUT his “leadership” on the global warming issue, so he must believe that his Climate Stewardship Act makes for good politics. That’s likely to change once voters learn more about the plan.

For one thing, evidence suggests that controlling billions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions from thousands of sources is too complex for government bureaucracies to handle. For example, in Phase I of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, which started three years ago, a huge misallocation of emissions quotas led to a collapse in the price of carbon from $40 to 40 cents. At that price, there was no incentive to reduce emissions, which is why Phase I was an abject failure.

Even a functioning cap could have only a limited effect on emissions. Energy-intensive industries would have every incentive to move their operations to countries without carbon controls, like China. As a result, McCain’s plan would cause a net reduction not of greenhouse gas emissions, but of American jobs.

Again, the European example is illustrative. Last month, the European Commission announced it will probably exempt Europe’s steel, chemical, and power sectors from Phase II of the Emissions Trading Scheme because “it is not in the interest of the European Union that in the future production moves to countries with less strict emissions limits.” But without those high-emission sectors, what possible good can come of a cap and trade scheme?

Or maybe we should ask whose good? The Arizona senator’s plan might not shrink emissions, but it will surely grow government. Under the Climate Stewardship Act, companies must buy an increasing portion of their annual emissions allotment from a government-run auction that would raise billions of dollars.

McCain does not offset this increase in government revenue with tax cuts elsewhere in the budget, so government would get bigger. He has said that he wants to promote “green jobs,” and indeed he would be doing so, by adding green bureaucrats.

Ultimately, the burden of the bill would fall upon American consumers. Industry cannot simply absorb the losses imposed upon it by McCain’s energy rationing plan. Instead, as noted in a 2007 Congressional Budget Office study, “much of the cost of a cap and trade would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy intensive goods.”

In addition to mandatory emissions caps, McCain’s bill would establish one of the largest ever government research programs, to develop clean energy technology. But government-funded research is unlikely to achieve a clean energy technological breakthrough because politicians are poor judges of which technologies show the most promise. If they were any good at picking winners, they would probably be venture capitalists.


****

McCAIN CLAIMS THE Climate Stewardship Act is a market-based solution to global warming. It is anything but. He would have the government cap emissions; create the emissions market and rake off the profits; and control clean energy research.

If he really wants to put forward free market alternatives, they do exist. He could advocate the elimination of government market interventions that obstruct emission reductions and discourage the adoption of lower emission technologies.

More... (http://cei.org/articles/maverick-climate-policy)

[Parkbandit]

Sweet Jesus. McCain is almost forcing me to throw a vote towards Obama. At least with Obama, I know what I'm getting... a diehard liberal socialist.

[Mabus]

Sweet Jesus. McCain is almost forcing me to throw a vote towards Obama. At least with Obama, I know what I'm getting... a diehard liberal socialist.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/images/flying%20pig.jpg

[Gan]

I dont think I buy into the McCain green initiative. :(

*
LOL Mabus!

[Parkbandit]

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/images/flying%20pig.jpg


Heh.. nice picture.

But here's where I am at:

I have 2 Democrats to pick from.. Obama, who is THE most liberal of all candidates.. and McCain, who wants to pretend to be my friend who was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution.. but isn't close to a real conservative.

If I vote for McCain.. I'll get 4 more years of a "Republican" president who holds very few Conservative values... or at least the fiscal ones I'm concerned with. I don't give a shit about religion or abortion... but am concerned about big government, bloated spending and high taxes. McCain will try and control spending.. but his liberal leaning ideas on the environment and immigration will end up spending any money he had sought to save. 4 more years of the Bush years is probably not that far off. Democrats will gain more seats in '08 and even more in '10 because they will view McCain as the typical Republican.

Obama hasn't hid his agenda or his limited voting record over the years... so hold onto your seats. BIG increases in taxes and Government spending. Democrats will gain more seats in '08.. but MAYBE people will finally wake the fuck up and stop the country from turning into the next Communist motherland and the socialists won't gain as many seats in '10. By '12, the general population will be screaming for real change and oust them all in exchange for a real fiscal conservative.

I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel with McCain.. but I can at least dream about the change that could occur with Jimmy Carter II.

[longshot]

I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel with McCain.. but I can at least dream about the change that could occur with Jimmy Carter II.

I'm sure it's just political posturing by McCain. If you want to win Oregon, you promise hippies their hippie utopia. If you want to win Ohio, you promise them a magical toaster factory that will provide good paying jobs with health care for everyone...

And I sincerely hope you consider the impact of all those "dreams." If moral, religious, and cultural equivalence are your cup of tea, then you already know whom to vote for.

[Clove]

I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel with McCain.. but I can at least dream about the change that could occur with Jimmy Carter II.GG. If you have to chose between two "evils" pick the worst to "teach the country a lesson."


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure it's just political posturing by McCain. If you want to win Oregon, you promise hippies their hippie utopia. If you want to win Ohio, you promise them a magical toaster factory that will provide good paying jobs with health care for everyone...

And I sincerely hope you consider the impact of all those "dreams." If moral, religious, and cultural equivalence are your cup of tea, then you already know whom to vote for.

I'm so tired of McCain's political posturing. I can't tell anymore what he really IS for.

[Clove]

I'm so tired of McCain's political posturing. I can't tell anymore what he really IS for.He's for being President :D

[Parkbandit]

GG. If you have to chose between two "evils" pick the worst to "teach the country a lesson."

But with the lesser of two evils.. we'll never learn a lesson until it's too late. A bloody nose is much better than an amputated arm. Take the lesson, stick some Kleenex in the nose to stop the bleeding and move on from there.

[CrystalTears]

You're such a political drama queen.

[Parkbandit]

How fucking dare you.

Well YOU ARE A DEPRESSION + RECREATIONAL DRUG DRAMA QUEEN!

[Daniel]

Watch out for pictures!

[CrystalTears]

How fucking dare you.

Well YOU ARE A DEPRESSION + RECREATIONAL DRUG DRAMA QUEEN!
Nothing is going to top "former semi-conservative", babe. ;)

[Gan]

Oh yea?

How about a 'former semi-conservative AARP MEMBER'?

huh? huh?

:yes:

Thats right, I went there.

[Clove]

Oh noz!

[CrystalTears]

How about a 'former semi-conservative AARP MEMBER'?

Was that aimed at PB or me? :D

[Gan]

Was that aimed at PB or me? :D

puh-lease.

Like you have to ask that.


I can only think of one AARP elligible member here that posts with any regularity now - and he lives in the sunshine state already.

:club:

[Parkbandit]

Oh yea?

How about a 'former semi-conservative AARP MEMBER'?

huh? huh?

:yes:

Thats right, I went there.

Ageism isn't something to be laughed at.

[CrystalTears]

AGEISM IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!

[Parkbandit]

puh-lease.

Like you have to ask that.


I can only think of one AARP elligible member here that posts with any regularity now - and he lives in the sunshine state already.

:club:

She used to live in Florida.. and she's almost as old as I am.

I think she may have lost her bearings.

[Keller]

She used to live in Florida.. and she's almost as old as I am.

I think she may have lost her bearings.

Does that make her a former semi-old Floridian?

[CrystalTears]

Fucking gold.

[Parkbandit]

Just for this post I am felating the first man I see tomorrow morning (it's midnight Paris time). I have no gag reflex.

:)

(since I can't read your responses.. I'll assume you are just being the typical little bitch you are and responding to one of my posts.. so in some cases, I'll just post this quote so you don't feel like I'm not giving you enough attention. If you weren't being the typical raging asshole you always are.. I'll apologize in advance when those rare occasions when you weren't being the scumbag we all know you are)

[BigWorm]

:)

(since I can't read your responses.. I'll assume you are just being the typical little bitch you are and responding to one of my posts.. so in some cases, I'll just post this quote so you don't feel like I'm not giving you enough attention. If you weren't being the typical raging asshole you always are.. I'll apologize in advance when those rare occasions when you weren't being the scumbag we all know you are)

Yeah, good one. You got him so good, man. Total burnination.

[Keller]

Wait, PB has me on ignore? I almost forgot. It's been at least two days since he reminded us all.

[Keller]

Let me help you:


Just for this post I am felating the first man I see tomorrow morning (it's midnight Paris time). And for your imagination's sake -- I have no gag reflex.
:)

[ClydeR]

McCain has accepted the politically correct, but unwarranted, premise that there is a global warming crisis. Even children who do just a little bit of research can refute that assumption.

WorldNetDaily held a video essay contest called "The Sky's Not Falling" (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598) for children to submit videos refuting some aspect of the global warming hysteria. The two winning videos are posted on the WND website at the above link. The second place video is the better of the two. It explains the CO2 issue in a way that anyone can understand.

[Deathravin]

When the fate of the planet is potentially at stake, I do like to listen to the grade school community rather than the scientific community. It makes me feel warmer and fuzzier.

[Parkbandit]

I like how you assume the entire scientific community bought into it.

Hey.. you might want to check the temperatures over the past 10 years. Also check the new temperatures from NASA of the Ocean.
Lastly, check on the ice shelf that was supposed to be melting away and destroying the polar bears. It was the 2nd largest on record this past year.

There is more data against global warming than there is for it. Much like the global cooling scare of the 70's, the crisis is created to make changes that the environmentalists want to see happen... but has very little impact on anything globally.

[BigWorm]

McCain has accepted the politically correct, but unwarranted, premise that there is a global warming crisis. Even children who do just a little bit of research can refute that assumption.

WorldNetDaily held a video essay contest called "The Sky's Not Falling" (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62598) for children to submit videos refuting some aspect of the global warming hysteria. The two winning videos are posted on the WND website at the above link. The second place video is the better of the two. It explains the CO2 issue in a way that anyone can understand.

WorldNetDaily is garbage. This is the same "news" organization that asked if the 9/11 attacks were brought about because "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America" due to a perceived lack of morals in the U.S. in general and NYC specifically. They've also posted multiple articles discussing the "shadow government" run by the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Deathravin]

I like how you assume the entire scientific community bought into it.

I just don't give a shit about what children have to say about scientific matters. I didn't say anything about the entire scientific community bought into anything. But I'd be a hellova lot more likly to take the advice of scientists than children. Who gives two shits what 9-12 year olds were told to say about Gore?

[BigWorm]

I like how you assume the entire scientific community bought into it.

Hey.. you might want to check the temperatures over the past 10 years. Also check the new temperatures from NASA of the Ocean.
Lastly, check on the ice shelf that was supposed to be melting away and destroying the polar bears. It was the 2nd largest on record this past year.

There is more data against global warming than there is for it. Much like the global cooling scare of the 70's, the crisis is created to make changes that the environmentalists want to see happen... but has very little impact on anything globally.

Do you have any recent papers (not from WorldNetDaily) by climatologists who don't think that humans are affecting the climate?

[Parkbandit]

Do you have any recent papers (not from WorldNetDaily) by climatologists who don't think that humans are affecting the climate?


Do a search here for global warming and me as an author. I had a whole entire listing of scientists who debunked the theory. And that was before NASA had to admit to incorrect temperature readings and ocean temperature readings over the past 10 years.

But hey.. don't get me wrong.. I LOVE the fact that ignorant people just believe in global warming. My company is based upon it. :)

[serra7965]

[Human caused/affected] Global Warming/Climate Change is the new cult religion and Al Gore the anti-Christ.

[Warriorbird]

Climate totally gets studied in a 10 year period. No icebergs, polar ice, or glaciers have melted.

I think the people with their heads in the sand over climate change are just as bad as the people with their head in the clouds.

Pushing for alternative fuels and the like can do nothing but help make America independent from some of the most Republican friendly parts of the planet (Venezuela, the Middle East...)

[Daniel]

:)

(since I can't read your responses.. I'll assume you are just being the typical little bitch you are and responding to one of my posts.. so in some cases, I'll just post this quote so you don't feel like I'm not giving you enough attention. If you weren't being the typical raging asshole you always are.. I'll apologize in advance when those rare occasions when you weren't being the scumbag we all know you are)


OMG NOOOOO! U BLOCKED ME!!!!!! HOW WILL I EVER LIVE WITH MYSELF!!!!111

I was wondering where you went to. I thought you finally took that 'job' of writing for a D&D magazine or became a professional Game Master!

But you blocking me makes me happy.. it's like a badge of honor. I bothered you SO much, that instead of crying and realizing you are one really, pathetic little nerd.. you blocked me. I can see you now.. rocking in your little computer chair.. saying "My mom likes me.. I like me.."

Thanks for cheering me up today man.. I was having a boring day and you just brightened it up.


Oh noes!!

[Deathravin]

We shouldn't be pushing for renewable fuels, reusable and recyclable packaging, and looking for a realistic method of population control because of global warming, or the threat of climate change.

We should do it because while we may only live for an average of 75 years, the planet and solar system as a whole have the capability of sustaining the human race for a hundreds of thousands if not hundreds of millions of generations.

We can't be just assuming that technology will advance to the point where our fuels won't run out, our trash won't collect, and our population won't get too big for the surface of the earth to sustain it with food.

People need to be implementing answers for these problems now, and when technology gives us a perpetual motion machine, materials that turn into air, and an unlimited food supply we can modify our policies.


Now back to southpark pictures and fart jokes for me.

[Clove]

People need to be implementing answers for these problems now, and when technology gives us a perpetual motion machine, materials that turn into air, and an unlimited food supply we can modify our policies.Otherwise buyers will clamor for 125% mortgages.

[Gan]

Otherwise buyers will clamor for 125% mortgages.

And adjustable rate mortgages that mature to 18% in 3 years.

And approval to buy a 500k mortgage based on a goundskeeper salary and a 590 credit score, stated income at 100% financing. He's going after the MID obviously...

[Deathravin]

Mr. Gambini, that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection... Overruled.

[Gan]

My cousin vinny.

Funny movie.


:heart: Marissa Tomei

[g++]

I guess Exxon messed up and gave McCain his money a little to early.