Posted on 05/13/2008 6:19:29 AM PDT by crazyhorse691
Sen. John McCain's Portland-based global warming manifesto now puts all three presidential candidates -- and both major parties' leaders -- firmly in favor of aggressive cuts to greenhouse gases.
McCain's goals, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, are less aggressive than those of Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, his potential Democratic opponents.
But they're a quantum leap from the goals in his home state. Under Arizona's plan, the state's emissions would still be 35 percent above 1990 levels by 2020.
And they're a bit tougher than the combined efforts of the Western Climate Initiative, a group of Western states -- including Oregon -- and Canadian provinces working now on their own global warming plan.
It's a long way from promise to law. But for some, McCain's speech signals a sea change in the policies of the nation.
Jeremy Symons, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's global warming campaign, said it marks the beginning of the "post-Bush era" on climate change.
"It's now clear that at some point we will implement a strong plan to deal with global warming," Symons said. "The urgency centers on how fast we can do it and making sure we don't waste any more time."
All three presidential candidates have sought to show their green sides when campaigning in Oregon. McCain's mandate on global warming, the one issue where he wins most environmental favor, may also reflect a rising tide of states demanding action on greenhouse gases.
Oregon and Washington have adopted some of the most ambitious state goals for cutting emissions.
"For those of us in the Pacific Northwest, it's kind of an exciting time because we have been able to leverage some movement at the state level into a much wider debate," said Eric de Place of the Sightline Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Seattle.
The centerpiece of McCain's approach to slowing global warming is a nationwide "cap-and-trade" system for reducing emissions -- setting an overall pollution limit, then letting individual polluters buy and sell emissions allowances within that limit.
Political minefields
But in delivering his manifesto Monday, he also stepped directly on two of the biggest ideological land mines around global warming reductions. He endorsed nuclear power and proposed to crack down on China and India if they don't adopt similar caps to control their accelerating emissions.
McCain, like the other candidates, also avoided addressing some key questions about the impacts of his plan, including costs to electricity and natural gas ratepayers.
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, pending now before the Senate but facing a potential veto from President Bush, would require roughly comparable emissions cuts by 2020 as McCain's plan. A recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration concluded that the bill would boost utility rates from 5 percent to 27 percent by 2020, with the range depending on how fast new emissions reduction technology develops.
McCain, Clinton and Obama all favor a cap-and-trade system, similar to that used in Europe to address global warming and in the United States to reduce acid rain pollution from coal plants. Their plans differ some: McCain's 2050 goal is for at least a 60 percent reduction; Obama and Clinton favor 80 percent.
Many scientists say an 80 percent cut is needed to limit human-caused warming to just a few degrees, but such a deep cut also would be tougher to achieve.
"It would be disingenuous for people to undersell the significance of the challenge we're facing," de Place said.
Under cap-and-trade, the U.S. government would set a limit, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions. Then it would allocate or sell pollution credits to utilities, industries and others included in the plan, based on their historic releases minus a share of the reduction goal.
In theory, polluters that could cut pollution most easily and cheaply would do so, then sell any excess credits to polluters that couldn't, allowing them to continue polluting as long as the overall cap isn't exceeded.
Polluters could also buy "offsets" by reducing greenhouse gas emissions outside the system, paying farmers to cut their use of gas-emitting fertilizer, for example, or subsidizing longer growing seasons on wood lots. McCain emphasized offsets in his speech Monday.
Using offsets opens the door to fuzzy accounting, though, because it's not clear how much greenhouse gases can be locked away through such methods or how long they will be removed from the system.
For instance, trees capture carbon dioxide, giving forest owners a market opportunity to get paid for keeping their trees standing. But can they assure that the trees won't burn up in wildfires, releasing the greenhouse gases back into the air?
Cap-and-trade relies on a government-mandated goal. But McCain and other supporters say it allows the free market -- not regulators -- to more efficiently control how pollution control actually gets done. A similar system effectively curtailed acid rain.
Northwest advantage
But the Pacific Northwest already emits far less greenhouse gases to produce electricity than most of the rest of the country because so much of the region's power comes from nonpolluting hydroelectric dams. Regional leaders say it's important that the region get credit for that advantage in any national system.
Oregon and Washington also are home to growing numbers of alternative energy companies, which are looking to Washington for continued government support. Here, McCain offered a mixed bag of goodies.
He would direct government aid toward the research and development of new technologies. But he wouldn't encourage long-term subsidies for particular industries, such as the tax credits currently in place for wind, solar and other renewable power resources.
"He wants to be fair and judicious" with tax credits, said Doug Holtz-Eaken, McCain's senior policy adviser, in a conference call later in the day.
Wind and solar subsidies are set to expire by year's end. Holtz-Eaken said McCain might support a short-term extension of the credits but "we'd look down the road to see if they're still necessary" once cap-and-trade policies were in place. Obama supports a 5-year extension. Clinton would make the credits permanent.
Oregon and Washington have experienced a boom in wind farm development in recent years, with hundreds of turbines rising in the breezy Columbia River Gorge.
Wind-energy companies, including Vestas Americas -- which served as the backdrop for McCain's speech -- say further growth will stall if the tax credits expire. The industry is vigorously lobbying for an extension.
Scott Learn: 503-294-7657; scottlearn@news.oregonian.com. Michael Milstein: 503-294-7689; michaelmilstein@news. oregonian.com Gail Kinsey Hill: 503-221-8590; gailhill@news.oregonian.com. For environment news, go to oregonlive.com/environment
I didn't attack you. I asked a fair question. For someone to obscure the obvious fact that McCain voted for Alito/Roberts and Obama voted against leads me to the question. How else to explain it? But hey, I apologize anyway (how McCain like of me, har har.) It was a rough statement, I grant you, and I retract it. I hope you accept my humble apology.
But how can you miss the obvious difference? What you said makes it even starker, that Obama is to the left of Reid, Rockefeller et al. (Actually, Byrd and Landrieu voting yea isn't that surprising. Weren't they gang of 14ers? I think they pledged not to filibuster.)
He’s running for the DNC Chair spot. Obviously...
Mandatory Free Market Solutions...wtf?
Okay... so McCain voted for Roberts and Alito.
Now tell me, has McCain *EVER* voted against *ANY* Scotus nominee?
Thank you!
McCain planning climate change tour
McCain's Letter (McCain aligns with Global Enviro activists)
The Turning Point on Global Warming (McCain and Lieberman Op-Ed Alert)
Climate bill sets stage for debate (Sens. McCain, Obama, and Lieberman join forces)
McCain: Global warming is fact, must be addressed [hurl alert]
McCain Sides With Leading Dems on Global Warming (NH voter reminder ALERT
EIA's Analysis of the Lieberman-McCain Climate Change Bill Human Events
McCain's Nose-Under-the-Tent Strategy - McCain's "Climate Stewardship Act" (S. 139), co-sponsored with Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Kyoto Through the Back Door? A Debate on the Lieberman –McCain Climate Stewardship Act - Heritage Foundation
Promising Vote on Global Warming - "But Mr. McCain, as we know, does not give up easily. ... He promises to be just as tenacious on this issue."
I don't know. But I know Obama has, and I know why. That's as far as it has to go for me to have that issue sorted out. McCain yes. Obama no.
Ha! The McCain campaign just sent me an ill-timed donation request, so I enclosed the following letter:
Dear Senator McCain,
I hope the FEC doesn’t mind my contributing $1 Billion in political advice to save your campaign from continuing it’s “global warming” political policy blunder.
1. Average surface temperatures around the globe have not increased in the last 10 years.
2. Ocean temperatures have decreased in the most recently measured 5 years.
3. WATER VAPOR comprises over 90% of all “greenhouse gases”, and ALL attempts to ACURATELY model causes in variations in water vapor in the atmosphere have FAILED!
4. CO2 is a LAGGING component in global temperature cycles, NOT a leading indicator!
5. Human behavior is NOT a factor in global climate change, BUT THE SUN IS!
6. If you’re serious about controlling global atmospheric pollution, talk to India and China and leave me alone until that mess is cleaned up.
7. 11 of 13 Polar Bear populations have thrived over the last 25 years, so quit USING them as some kind of tear jerk, political pawn.
Sincerely,
I’m optimistic that McCain will win, and that some of what he accomplishes will be beneficial. Lord knows GWB has to go. He’s useless.
So the guy that nominated Alito and Roberts is useless, but one of the guys that voted for them will be beneficial? Sorry, any way you slice it, we are SCREWED.
GWB had his chance. He's simply mangled the job so badly that at this point, he's useless. Back in early 2001, he was able to get some small marginal rate cuts. And with the prodding of the base we got what appear to be two good SCOTUS picks. And he started out tough against Al Quaida. But by now he's done. Spent. America is through with him.
Now it will be someone else's turn. I'm optimistic it will be McCain, and that some good will come from it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.