Looking Ahead to the General (McCain: "We need a successor to Kyoto")

Carbon Coalition (New Hampshire Citizens for a Responsible Energy Policy) ^ | March 25th, 2008 | by Carbon Coalition

[Gelato]

A series of events this week provided interesting insight into how climate and energy issues might play out in the general election next fall when Republican nominee John McCain will face either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. McCain spent six months before the New Hampshire primary highlighting his environmental credentials in comparison to the weaker records of his Republican competition.

For first time in the campaign, McCain is now directly challenging the Democratic candidates on their climate commitments and highlighting his record in the Senate. At a town hall in California yesterday, The Washington Post blog The Trail reported that when asked to distinguish himself from the Democrats on climate change, McCain stated:

“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…I have proposed legislation and fought for amendments.”

If McCain continues to make this argument through the general election climate change will surely be covered by the media and play a role in the election.

Interestingly, John McCain spent much of last week meeting with European leaders and discussing global problems such as climate change while the two Democratic candidates slogged it out in West Virginia talking up “clean coal” to scrounge up votes in the coal rich state.

In an op-ed in the UK’s Financial Times titled “America must be a good role model,” McCain promised that the United States would work with all European countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global climate change.

McCain writes:

“I have introduced legislation that would require a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but that is just a start. We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. New technologies hold great promise. We need to unleash the power and innovation of the marketplace in order to meet our environmental challenges. Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.”

Clinton’s statements on West Virginia Public Radio:

“I am concerned about it for all the reasons people state, but I think it’s a difficult question because of the conflict between the economic and environmental trade-off that you have here.”

Obama on the stump in West Virginia:

“We can create up to 5 million new green jobs … including new clean coal jobs.”

The statements coming from the Clinton and Obama camps out of West Virginia have some environmentalists concerned. If you need proof, just read the comments on the grist stories. It is important to remember that McCain has been generally supportive of expanding and investing in clean coal technology throughout the campaign as well.

John McCain enjoys a position in the election right now where many of his statements go unchallenged by either of the Democratic candidates. In the fall it will be interesting to see how the Democrats eventually counterpunch McCain’s charge that neither has demonstrated any “particular commitments” to climate change.

[LibertarianInExile]

If you want to write in someone because nobody represents you in ANY party, that is peachy with me, and it is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do. Perhaps I was unclear as a result of my haste to make my point, and worse, didn’t consider you might be in such a situation. Far be it from me to gripe if you write in and because you can’t find a legit representative already on the ballot. All I’m saying is that if you’re going to make a non-Republicrat vote, do your best to make it obvious what that vote meant so neither Republicrats or Demmicans can misconstrue it. Seems to me a vote for a write-in President whose position is unclear or who is a total unknown, that vote will be less likely to be understood as a rebuke or threat by the two major parties. That’s all.