NO SHOWERS!!!
Posted on 05/13/2008 2:50:03 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Senator McCain gave a speech in Portland, Oregon Monday reiterating and explaining his longstanding support for a “cap-and-trade” approach to global warming. He proposes that the government require reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions but allow companies to trade emissions credits, supposedly creating an efficient, market-based distribution of the regulatory burden. Support for this policy is the biggest mistake his campaign has made so far.
Early in this speech, Sen. McCain ran through a litany of woes that we can expect from global warming: “reduced water supplies, more forest fires than in previous decades, changes in crop production, more heat waves afflicting our cities, and a greater intensity in storms.” In other words, we may be worse off in the future because of emitting carbon dioxide today. In the next paragraph, he said that “the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy.” In other words, we will be less materially wealthy, at least in the short-run, if we reduce our use of carbon-based energy.
This means there’s a trade-off, and it raises the obvious question about his proposed policy: How much will it cost us today, and how much better off will it make us in the future?
The Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) estimates that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime like the one discussed in this speech would cause about a one-percent reduction in GDP within five years. In less abstract terms, under that projection, by 2014 something like 1 million people would lose their jobs and the average American family would have about $150 less to spend every month. The costs would ramp up dramatically from there. In short, it would cost a lot. The U.N. IPCC estimates that unconstrained global warming is expected to cause damages equal to about 1-5 percent of global economic output about a century from now. William Nordhaus of Yale has estimated that the net benefit that would be created for the world by a perfectly implemented, globally harmonized carbon tax would be just under 0.2 percent of the present value of future global consumption. That presents a painfully thin margin for error, ignores the fact that costs will be disproportionately borne by the U.S., and does not bear much resemblance to the rhetoric of crisis that Sen. McCain uses in his speech.
It is highly unlikely that we could ever realize this theoretical benefit. Nobody has any realistic plan to get China and India to reduce emissions, and without doing so the costs of cap-and-trade to the U.S. would be dramatically greater than the benefits. Even if we could get the developing world to go along, the theoretical benefits that such a regulatory regime might create would, in the real world, be more than offset by the economic drag that would be created by the side deals required to get China, India, and the U.S. ethanol lobby, among many others, to go along with it.
The scariest sentence in the speech was: “If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.” This is posturing in the place of thought. It puts us in the worst possible negotiating position, and confirms that Sen. McCain is not engaging practically with the costs and benefits of his own policy. It indicates a foolish willingness to sacrifice trillions of dollars on the altar of fashionable, though uniformed, opinion and political expediency.
Once you leave reason behind, there is no logical stopping point, and his Democratic opponent will always be willing to one-up him. Sen. Clinton’s reaction to his speech (literally before it was even delivered) was: “Senator McCain’s proposal simply does not go far enough…”
It's like Fonzie jumped the shark, but Happy Days is still the only thing on TV.
Bulletin to the Editors of National Review: The whole damn ‘crisis’ is utter bunk.
McCain will let the Senate decide who his judges will be.
From your lips to mine. I feel the exact same way and am having an already difficult time trying to convince myself that voting for McCain is a good thing. Problem is, I take my right to vote very seriously and refuse (right now) NOT to vote in November.
As my dearly departed Mom used to say . . ."We are in a pickle!"
NO SHOWERS!!!
His temper and ego already tell us that he will surround himself with yes-men.
I remember pollution credits being touted in the early '90s as the eventual solution to global warming. The problem is that people don't care about pollution, they care about energy. What a nice sounding global cap on pollution really comes to is a communist takeover of the global fuel market. If such a thing can happen, it will mean a new global government will rule over the planet with control over energy trade. If you want to generate your own fuel for use inside your own country, the new global government will either invade to stop you, or blockade you if you have a good enough military.
Screw Lieberman. Maybe Juan McCain should pick Gore as his running mate.
Do you have some suggestions?
It indicates a foolish willingness to sacrifice trillions of dollars on the altar of fashionable, though uniformed, opinion and political expediency.
What sort of uniform does fashionable opinion wear?
Of course it matters, but the devil is in the details. If McCain says coal is bad, so we're fast-tracking nuclear, great. If he says electric cars are the future, and gives hefty tax breaks to bring battery manufacturers into the country, all the better. However, if he says car companies must have an average of 60mpg by 2010, or declares huge portions of the U.S. as open space and off limits to development, or makes it even more difficult to manufacture anything with new ppb pollution regulations, then we're screwed.
This is why senators in general, make lousy presidents.
He has said he will bring in Warren Buffett to head a commission on reforming government. He said he'd work with Harry Reid to get SS Reform (and give all he "credit" to Dems. To most Dem questions, it is McCain who seems to be saying "Yes." Best watch your wallet, no matter who is elected.
If he accepts AGW, is it because he has shut off input from those who don't agree with what he already thinks?
Well... he sent Lindsay Graham out to call everyone bigots for not agreeing with his Amnesty plan. That should give us all a clue. I sure haven't seen him with Inhofe at his side.
"Once you leave reason behind, there is no logical stopping point"...to idiocy. There are no longer any reasons to vote for McCain. He has left reason, and what's best for America, behind, in ignorant, blind ambition to gain the White House. Vote against the Dems if you like, but please don't continue the fiction that there is any reason to vote for McCain.
If the economy can be sacrificed, and global warming crowned as a "national security issue," than the judiciary and the military are also negotiable, depending on how the polls shake out.
It's just so disappointing to hear McCain tack even further to the left.
If this AGW stuff gets passed, it will damage the U.S. more than anything in Iraq could ever do.
Good point. And I would have to vote "yes".
I would surmise that McCain is incapable of admitting he's made a mistake. His ego is one of the biggest burdens he'll have to bear. Not to mention the country...
Romney would never buy into this global warming hoax.
That's one reason -- among others -- why he'll never be McCain's choice for Veep.
Every time that I think of that possibility, I try to swallow my bile and vow to vote for the Republican John McCain. But, each week afresh, another step is taken by this flummoxed political hack that causes me to avow to the television or Internet screen how I think I may be busy on November 4th.
What an idiot.
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.