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…”
Unfortunately, I don't see one single conservative really out there who could stage a national run, even as a 3d party candidate. The three most conservative guys in the primaries, Hunter, Thompson, and Brownback, could barely get 10% if they ran together.
I'm more convinced by the day that we are better off to let the Dems have it and ride the country into the toilet so we can get a mandate to build it up. We have two examples of it taking a pretty bleak circumstance for people to get some sense: Reagan in 1980 and Thatcher in 1979.
You posted,”McCain is working hard at throwing the election to whichever official Dem makes it to the finish line.”
I am so mad at McCain.....AND EVEN MORE after seeing him this evening on Fox saying he knows he is going to make people in his own party mad with his views on climate change......and he took great pleasure in saying it....how did we ever get such a dunce for our candidate?
I never thought I would go against the Republican candidate in a presidential election but I’m sorry, I don’t think I can hold my nose tight enough to vote for McCain. I will not give him a dime.
I don’t particularly like Bob Barr, but I may vote for him anyway....last night on Glenn Beck’s program he sounded more conservative than mccain ever has. McNasty needs a back lash.
I’m beginning to think your view makes sense, though I’m still concerned about the judges which as you know are lifetime appointments.
What a mess.
Absolutely. Yet--on this and orther threads--we have various posters willing to believe that McCain can be trusted on, e.g., judges and Iraq, when they're up to their collective asses in evidence that McCain has never met a promise or commitment he couldn't rise above in the interest of political expediency.
He simply cannot be trusted. On anything.
The only possible reasons to vote for McCain are the judiciary and the military...other than that, he’s an absolute waste. Bush is a RINO temporarily hidden by a Texas drawl. McCain is a RINO with no disguise.
I'm not sure about the judiciary. Remember, this was the guy who organized the Gang of 14.
And the military? Maybe. He wants to shut down Gitmo over political correctness. Who knows what he'll do when he no longer has to pander.
McCain has shifted to the right in his statements on taxes, the judiciary, and a few other areas because he needs the GOP base to have a chance. To me, this suggests he wasn't taking principled positions, but politically expedient ones. He won't stand by them. The enviromarxist speech confirms it.
The greatest threat to our liberty and prosperity today does not come from Islamic fascism, but from enviromarxism and we've got three enviromarxists left in the race.
I voted for Reagan with pride and optimism.
I voted for GHW Bush with cautious optimism the first time, hoping he learned something from eight years at Reagan's side (he didn't). After all, he was far better than Dukakis.
Yet, when given a choice between GHW Bush and Clinton, I held my nose and voted for GHW Bush. Afterwards I swore I'd never vote when confronted by the evil of two lessers again.
Yet, when given a choice between Dole and Clinton, I held my nose and voted for Dole. Afterwards I swore I'd never vote when confronted by the evil of two lessers again.
Yet, when given a choice between GW Bush and Gore, I held my nose and voted for GW Bush. Afterwards I swore I'd never vote when confronted by the evil of two lessers again.
Yet, when given a choice between GW Bush and Kerry, I held my nose and voted for GW Bush. Afterwards swore I'd never vote when confronted by the evil of two lessers again.
Given the choice between McCain and Obama or Clinton, I'm not sure there's enough contrast to get me to hold my nose.
What's wrong with America when this is the best we can do?
They're the sorts who -- humiliatingly enough -- are ruled entirely (and effectively) by fear. Some paid Team Juan shill squeaks "OBAMA!OBAMA!OBAMAOBAMAOBAMA!!!" at precisely the right moment... and, on cue, they all promptly pee their panties, en masse.
Sad, but true.
I heard Michael Savage ask today if there was any way we could drop the 3 current candidates and get new ones.
One thing I admire about the paulistas is that they want to do something about McQueeg. Is it possible to pressure delegates to the convention to withhold their vote on this total Zero and throw open the process?
If so, how about a list of delegates and their info.
Bull! I wanna vote FOR someone!! I'll just vote FOR Ralph Nader who makes no pretense to trying to think like me!!!
Then we'll pass a law that the Green Party is only valid in Greenland!!! (It got that name from the last GW)
Dear John: I commend you for your service and resistance during capture. But due to your meeting with La Raza a known anti-American group and your acceptance of Global Warming Hysteria, I will stay home on election day and see if your disregard for the Conservative vote and the courting of the Democrat vote works for you. I have voted Republican since 1968. Curtis A. Rock
I suggest that more people go to his website and submit their thoughts on his campaign tack. Click on contact us!
Good idea, but din't you mean crap and trade?
I don't think he can be trusted on the judiciary as he is more than willing to work with the democrats and will want their input.
What a picture that conjures up.
You just reminded me me there is NO reason to choose McCain. He will never get a conservative SCOTUS appointment past a Democrat Congress. That won’t upset him though, he will willingly oblige Fat Teddy.
As far as the WOT, if Mccain wins, the RAT congress will defund the war, and McCain will willingly oblige.
He crosses the aisle...to the dark side...because he is aligned with them.
>>
“And you vote in the only possible way to deny Obama power.”
Bull! I wanna vote FOR someone!! I’ll just vote FOR Ralph Nader who makes no pretense to trying to think like me!!!
>>
It’s not really supposed to be about what you “want”. It’s supposed to be a selfless act that denies power to the worst choice.
No one ever has been able to support all of a candidate’s positions. Generally not possible. There will always be some aspect of position that is not aligned.
So you pick the rightward most candidate who is viable. That’s not Obama.
I sure hope he is just trolling for dim votes.
This thought has been on my mind a lot lately. Give the Dems four years to really screw up the country, scare a bunch of people and then try and take the country back in 2012.
To a point that makes sense. Except for one thing: the SCOTUS. Chances are good the next POTUS will appoint two Supremes, maybe more. Life terms. It would be at least 10 years before this damage could be undone. hat worries me a lot.
Of course all of this is a moot point if the Second American Revolution starts before Nov 4th.
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.