Here are some more excerpts from Sen. John McCain's environmental roundtable discussion yesterday in North Bend.
Global Warming
"Suppose that we who believe that climate change is real are wrong. Suppose that all the scientific data that is being accumulated and all the things we can see with our own eyes and the information that is given to us by the most cautious of all groups - National Academy of Sciences and others - but we're wrong and we adopt green technologies. Then it seems to me all we've done is hand off to future generations a cleaner and better planet.
Suppose we are right and do nothing about this issue. Then what is our obligation? What's our stewardship of this planet and what kind of planet should we give future generations of Americans. I am absolutely convinced that despite what critics and skeptics say when you unleash American innovation and entrepreneurship technical skills and all the technology that is available to us I believe it is good for the American economy."
Energy Independence
"It's not just an environmental issue now it's a national security issue and an economic issue. People all over America today on fixed incomes are dreading going to get their gas tank filled up. It's higher and higher. So it's having a devastating economic impact. It's a national security issue when we are dependent upon more than $400 billion a year in imported oil to countries that don't like us very much and some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations."
Nuclear Power
80 percent of France's energy is produced by nuclear power.
"We sail ships around the world for sixty years... and we've never had a problem. We've never had a nuclear accident. We ought to be able as a nation to address the issues of transportation of spent nuclear fuels, the storage of it, whether we can reprocess and take advantage of new technologies which are available that the Europeans use. If other countries are able to make us of nuclear power, address the issue of spent nuclear fuel, I don't know why the United States of America can't."
Clean Coal
"We're either going to build [nuclear] plants or we're going to build coal fire plants. I'm all for clean coal technology. I think it's wonderful. Right now it's too expensive - if you look at the amount of money - I have confidence over time this technology will become less expensive. We're sitting on the world's largest supply of coal. So it has to be a highest priority. In the meantime I don't think we can afford nor should we lay on future generations of Americans an increase in greenhouse gas emissions."
Alternative fuels
"I have to give you Straight Talk on government subsidies. We just saw the example of the impact of the subsidies for ethanol. I opposed the subsidies for ethanol because I thought it would distort the market. I'm all for alternative fuels, we all are, but when the government jumps in and distorts the market there are unintended consequences."
Agriculture under Cap-and-Trade
"Sequestration and earning credits, even if you are not in the power business, is an important part of it. This is an incentive for our agriculture business. If you can sequester carbon, if you can cut down on methane... We've got to provide those incentives."
Government's Role
"Pure research and development is a role for the government; the Internet and there are many other examples. I'd love to see us develop a battery that takes a car 100 miles before it had to be plugged in and would be able to be recharged quickly. Once you develop it you hand it off to private enterprise."
Rejecting a Carbon Tax
"Those costs are just passed on to the consumer."
Cap-and-Trade
"When we tried to and did successfully address the acid rain problem it was through cap and trade. The Europeans... have a cap and trade system. We're not inventing the wheel here. We're not talking about something that is new. We're trying to put free enterprise, market-based incentives to addressing, what I think, is a threat to a future generations of Americans."
On disagreement with the Republican base
"I've made some Republicans mad in the past and I may make them mad now. My job is to do what I know is best for this nation. Particularly where our environment is concerned."
Sen. John McCain 5/13/08
Bonus:
The roundtable discussion was moderated by former Gov. Dan Evans who expressed his thoughts on whether efforts should be made to combat Global Warming.
"Almost 18 years ago I headed a National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change. We could not decide at that time whether or not there was Global Warming. But our policy recommendations were that it really didn't make any difference. We opted for an insurance policy. People don't expect fires. They never expect their homes burned. But they always buy fire insurance. We said the same thing. There are many things that can be done that make sense economically that have a big roll to play in reducing Global Warming. It frankly doesn't make any difference whether there is or isn't climate change. If there are those few who still believe it's not happening it is still good to buy insurance."
Gov. Dan Evans 5/13/08
Posted by DonWard at May 14, 2008 10:10 AM | Email ThisCommissioner of Public Lands Doug Sutherland, REI CEO Sally Jewell, HomeStreet Bank CEO Bruce Williams, Mercer Island city councilman Steve Litzow and West Mathison of Stemilt Growers were also among those sitting in on the discussion.
Posted by: Don Ward on May 14, 2008 10:44 AMIf we need a democrat in office, there's no point in voting for the fake variety when the real thing is available.
Posted by: Hinton on May 14, 2008 10:53 AMIt's what you do about it.
IMO too many of the "solutions" are nothing more than money/power grabs.
Posted by: Sam Adams on May 14, 2008 11:06 AMSuppose "we" (that doesn't include all of us) are wrong, then how many people have had their lives adversely impacted or destroyed because of a lie? How many will starve, for example, because of the push to biofuels that are leading to food shortages? Or sustain poverty by withholding energy and industrialization?
Energy Independence
And every American who votes for Democrats are voting for a party that opposes energy independence through its anti-energy policies. We can't drill, refine, or build nuclear plants. They want to tax energy companies into oblivion and create more and more disincentives for research and development into technologies related to the most abundant and inexpensive energy available. No, we spend billions to grow corn and build windmills that won't begin to meet even our own future growth.
Alternative fuels
When they are available and cheaper than gasoline, coal, nuclear, bring them on! Until then, not taking advantage of such incredible God-given cheap energy is insane!
McCain says, "I've made some Republicans mad in the past and I may make them mad now. My job is to do what I know is best for this nation. Particularly where our environment is concerned."
And if McCain is wrong and wants to lead this nation in the wrong direction, and he's had access to the facts like the rest of us, then why should anyone support him?
All things be relatively equal between liberal-loving McCain, anti-Christ Hillary or Socialist moron Obama, the only reason I'll vote for McCain in November is to keep more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs off the Supreme Court. Although, I'm tempted more and more to let the left run things further into the ground and just say I told you so as their cries grow louder and louder.
In my mind people must be masochists to continue to vote for a party that can't seem to do anything that makes life better.
Posted by: Reality on May 14, 2008 11:18 AMI can't answer that with the Maverick. He thinks you can have the cake and eat it, too.
Posted by: swatter on May 14, 2008 11:38 AMYour right, but McCain cannot keep throwing mud at his Con voters. Most people have their breaking point, and if he thinks the lib vote will elect him to the WH he's smoking something.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 14, 2008 11:56 AMAgreed, and agreed.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 14, 2008 12:19 PMRising gas prices are largely the result of inflation and the devaluation of the dollar that resulted from government overspending. Much of the overspending is on the Iraq war, but the Republican incumbents have spent even more on domestic programs and entitlements.
You can not both be a fiscal conservative and an Iraq war interventionist.
McCain is wrong about government funding of research as well.
McCain is going to lose in November because of the one-two-punches the electorate will deal him on the Iraq war and the Republican mishandling of government spending.
Former Republican congressman from GA, Bob Barr will probably get the Libertarian nomination and be on the ballot in about 48 states. I'll probably be voting for him.
Long-term, this will send a message to the Republicans that they need to return to their conservative values. Voting for McCain while he loses will achieve nothing.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on May 14, 2008 12:23 PMContinually repeating this lie won't make it true. Do a little research on his stances on government spending, Iraq, healthcare, education, war on terror, gun rights, abortion, and judicial appointments (to name just a few), and you'll find quite a difference.
Posted by: Palouse on May 14, 2008 12:28 PMWhile I agree it's infuriating, sitting this election out is not an option for a pragmatist. You may think there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two, but in 20 years (should an Obama or Clinton get elected) when the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the norm and not the exception on the SCOTUS, don't whine about the decisions they pass down as they are final.
Despite McCain's faults (which are many for a Republican), he's still more likely to appoint another John Roberts rather than a David Souter type to the bench.
Klintonobamania and the all good society, unless you disagree.
Posted by: Independent Voter on May 14, 2008 12:42 PM#19: McCain has gleefully (and repeatedly) stuck his thumb in the eye of the conservative base over the past 10 years. Now he does it again in the campaign and he still expects me to support him? I don't think so.
Posted by: Kato on May 14, 2008 01:21 PMHillary is too smart to go too far as to awaken Americans, but without a teleprompter, Obama is just ignorant enough to do it. Will it be more painful than another administration like the current one that continually compromises with the left while taking their shots? Sure. But if 50% +1 Americans are not awakened to the destructiveness of liberal/socialist agendas, then we might as well pack it in.
Unfortunately, the grip the left has on the media and education is pouring out more and more of their robots every day. The more we slide into policy insanity and gullibility in accepting the left's lies, the more impossible a turnaround looks.
Posted by: Reality on May 14, 2008 01:33 PMCrony, statism, and socialism is killing the GOP. Haven't you learned anything from 1994 or 2006?
If the GOP wants my vote, they need to earn it. Other than Rossi, I am done with the crony, statist, Doug/BART/Chris Vance, pathetic, minority party GOP. You call yourselves mainstreamers, I call you folks losers and statists.
Posted by: AP on May 14, 2008 01:34 PMReally? Are you sure about that? Before you answer, recall that Souter was appointed by H.W. Bush.
Posted by: jimg on May 14, 2008 01:37 PMDitto and if I even think that there is a chance that Rossi might end up as another one who ends up with his eyebrows so tangled up in the Democrat's butt hair that he loses sight of his supporters...I will be done with him as well.
I have had it with the likes of McCain and the entire WSRP for that matter. What should be done with them is to stretch a rubber glove over their head and shove a feather duster up their ass and and put them on display at the Smithsonian as a representative example of a flock of dodo birds. That is about all they are good for.
Posted by: JDH on May 14, 2008 01:53 PMMcCain will destroy the Conservative Movement from within the Republican party. Obama even as President of course will not have such power within the Republican party to do that.
Obama will make the Frog Jump. McCain will kill the conservative movement.
The Republican Elite like to talk about the "lesser of two evils" well this year the "lesser of the two evils" is clearly Obama.
Here is another great video regarding the truth about Global Warming.
Posted by: Larry on May 14, 2008 01:58 PMSo, do you want to have history say that it was a Republican president that destroyed the US economy?
If the economy is going to be destroyed I rather a Democrat does it than a Republican.
Posted by: Larry on May 14, 2008 03:07 PMAny money I've got for political contributions goes to Dino Rossi.
Posted by: Saltherring on May 14, 2008 03:53 PMReally? Let's ask...Hey Duffy, will you be going for McCain since if Hillary is not the candidate? =)
Maybe you don't realize that there is a another frequently blathering Bart on this blog. Bart Cannon. ME.
For the rest of you. "BART" is NOT Bart Cannon.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on May 14, 2008 05:27 PMIf "cap and trade" uses some starting point in the past to determine who has "credits" to sell, it can be like handing some people money even though their reduced emissions resulted from no efficiencies at all. Their business may have simply moved some industrial activity to another country, thereby reducing their emissions in the US. Why reward that by giving them credits they can sell to someone else?
My worry is that the 60 to 80 percent reduction in CO2 emissions that must be accomplished by 2050 to satisfy the anthropogenic global warming fans cannot be done without crippling our economy. It's been a long time since we traveled by foot and horseback, and powered our industries by human and animal power -- along with a few windmills and millponds. Short of going back to those times, I doubt we are going to come up with technology that can cut emissions so much.
Look, if they want to simply have cleaner air, hey great. I prefer clean air to dirty air. Most people do. (except for Los Angeles residents, who don't seem to mind--don't bother hassling me about the comment; I grew up there). But going on this rant about global warming when the earth has been warmer long ago with no problem is kind of lame
Posted by: Michele on May 14, 2008 05:38 PMThe conclusions of the research:
A) Man plays a slight role in climate stats.
B) Short of returning to the Stone Age, humans
can effect zero change on future climate.
The conclusions not publicized.
A) Climate change will be local, not global.
B) Warming will locally be good.
C) Local cooling will occur. Good?
D) Warming can be wetter as well AND cooler.
E) We don't really know much yet.
And on the last point, it was entertaining to imagine McCain shivering in his rubber rain suit while the snow fell on happy confers 1000 feet over his head near Rattlesnake Lake. On May 13th.
And did no one see Danny Westneat today with love arrows for McCain's scientific sophistication?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on May 14, 2008 05:41 PMMcCain Tries to Have It Both Ways
by Meteor Blades
Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:46:54 PM PDT
Some days you gotta almost feel sorry for John McCain. He's trying so hard to paint himself green. Which doesn't do him any good among the environmental dunderheads in his own party. And doesn't convince all that many of the rest of us that he has a clue, as Joseph Romm affirmed in detail in a thoroughgoing smackdown over at Climate Progress.
Not only would McCain's prescriptions seriously fail to address global warming, but he also has a voting record, the ungreen nature of which is available for all to see. When he deigns to show up for eco-related votes (which, as the League for Conservation Voters noted, he didn't do at all during the group's last measuring period), he gives the finger to environmentally far-sighted legislation about three-fourths of the time.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 14, 2008 06:52 PMWhy would it be a good idea to spend billions of our tax receipts on something that is probably non-existent? Are you old enough to remember of the Y2K panic? Did your light's come on when you turned the switch on in the morning of June first 2000? Did your car start?
Let's not ever ever again pass legislation based on flawed assumptions that science doesn't support. Few legislators any know anything about science.
How about the research begins with private enterprise? Once the government has its hands on something, it most likely will monopolize whatever that is, and it will never be handed off to private enterprise.
Posted by: Cydney on May 14, 2008 10:47 PMPure research and development come from original thinking regardless of the source. The government does not have a lock on original thinking. Back in the 1800's, some government folk expressed an interest in closing the Patent Office. Their thought being that there were no new inventions or science to be explored.
In many cases, private citizens led the way into new frontiers. Edison and Tesla leap into mind. Followed by an endless list of private citizens. Wright brothers, Einstein, folk playing with silicon chips. My point being in many cases governments have spent all to much money subsidizing dead ends that get tossed on the ash heap of history. Bio-fuel will prove to be a dead end.
McCain comments on a battery also illustrates one such dead end. Sounds good, just plug it in and drive for another 200 miles, until one ask the question where does the electrical power come from and how efficient is it? And how much energy is used to create the battery. My guess it is not very efficient. Just ask Toyota owners the cost of replacing the battery.
As an aside, there is a small Seattle company developing earth friendly super capacitor technology that would charge in mere minutes and power a car for hundreds of miles. Cheaper than a battery and more efficient. It may be time to build the nuclear plants to supply the electrical power required to fuel the next generation of cars, trucks, boats and trains. Or perhaps, Tesla idea of wireless power transmission may offer some benefits.
Posted by: Snuffy on May 15, 2008 08:07 AMLike the imminent threat from Iraq? Too late for that.
This is a common misconception. Private research can be very valuable. Some companies, like 3M, give their staff opportunies to spend a small percentage of their time on researching whatever they want. Google is also trying to follow this model. When it works, it works well.
The problem is stockholders. They have invested in the companies, and therefore, want a return on investment. What they see is the bottom line, and on the bottom line research is an expense with a mediocre return on investment. Some companies, such as Drug Companies, have to research in order to stay in the game, but then they soak the customer to repay that research within the timeframe they have to collect it on the new patented drug. Other industries, like energy or automobile industries, however, there is not the incentive for research into alternative energy, unless there is a big carrot (e.g., tax incentives and/or government grants). The difference also somewhat has to do with whether the industry is an oligopy, like energy, or free and open competition.
If you look at the innovations that came out of the Space Program, you will see that government initiatives that have a solid goal, do have a valuable return on investment. Do you really think all the innovations that resulted from trying to reach the goal of putting the man on th moon, would have occurred as quickly as they did? The miniturization of semiconductors, and some of the other innovations, like lighter weight materials, were essential to reach NASA's goal. It would be an interesting exercise to see if, for example, Moores Law (relating to the processing power exponential growth) would have proven true without NASA's goal. The Internet would not have came about as quickly as it did without Government funding and research grants into producing a network that could withstand a cold-war nuclear attack.
Posted by: tc on May 15, 2008 11:26 AM