John McCain just came out with some advertising that paints the image of him as a conservationist in the old style, a steward of the planet. Here's the commercial:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/17/53641/5360?source=daily
Now, I know he's not the worst, but he's certainly not the best when it comes to the environment (is anyone surprised by a large amount of flooding and some wildfires?).
I had the idea that he was going to invest large sums in nuclear energy -- sound familiar? That's clean, right? Well, it's not all farts and sunshine when it comes to nuclear, especially in terms of waste disposal and storage. Environmental activist David Suzuki has this to say: "Although we can recycle some waste from power production, we still haven’t really figured out what to do with most of it. One method for large-scale storage is to bury it, but that’s basically a policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind – we don’t yet know the full consequences. It’s also expensive and the waste has to be transported over long distances where the probability of a mishap is very real."
The nuclear is in fact a big part of his plan:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/16/politics/p121209D25.DTL
And, of course, there's always Chernobyl.
Some snippets from history:
1994: McCain votes NO on continuing desert protection in California.
1997: McCain votes NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.
1999: His stance was basically that we should "preserve natural resources for the future."
2003: The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a rating of 53% -- again, not the worst, but not great -- which may indicate that he simply doesn't ever intend to make the global climate crisis a priority.
So, isn't McCain a big fan of the cap-and-trade program? That would certainly be step in the right direction, but too small a step (he can't alienate himself from big energy... after all, it's election time). Essentially McCain is calling for 1990 emission levels by 2020, and 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. That long-term target falls short of the 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends. David Roberts (Grist.org... again) writes, "[McCain] does, however, propose to allow unlimited use of domestic and international carbon offsets for compliance with the cap, at least initially. He would also give away rather than auction a substantial portion of the original pollution permits" (emphasis mine).
And just this week, both McCain and President Bush pushed for an increase in offshore drilling. I know what you're thinking: $4 gas and Middle East oil dependency. Bush is friends with the royal family of Saudi Arabia, and has invaded Iraq, which surely must have some oil, right? Who needs diplomacy and fair trade when you can just go take whatever you want?
Oh, and in Germany it's around 3.05 euros per liter... which brings us to a healthy $11.49/gallon. Quit your bitching about $4 gas. It's easier for everyone to adapt a little than for the already strained biosphere to bend any more for us.
On McCain's most recent speech about environmental policy, David Roberts (Grist.org) writes, "In fact, there [was] virtually no mention of any emission reduction policies outside of cap-and-trade -- no efficiency or fuel economy mandates, no electrical utility decoupling, no mention of public transit."
So, no mention of the widespread implementation of clean, carbon-neutral forms of renewable energy? We have the technology to do so much more. We should also possess the good judgment.
McCain is simply not going to be an effective leader when it comes to the problems of global climate change and the energy crunch. His overall plan is not even better than the Lieberman-Warner bill (that just got shot down by Republicans in the Senate), and is nowhere close to that of Barack Obama.
I will keep posting links to more stuff as I find it.
Like this:
"Depends on the definition of the word 'mandatory'
John McCain doesn't appear to understand his own emissions plan"
That's the headline.
Here's the story:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/16/124515/466?source=muck
And now, dessert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
And second dessert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related
http://gristmill.grist.org
Now, I know he's not the worst, but he's certainly not the best when it comes to the environment (is anyone surprised by a large amount of flooding and some wildfires?).
I had the idea that he was going to invest large sums in nuclear energy -- sound familiar? That's clean, right? Well, it's not all farts and sunshine when it comes to nuclear, especially in terms of waste disposal and storage. Environmental activist David Suzuki has this to say: "Although we can recycle some waste from power production, we still haven’t really figured out what to do with most of it. One method for large-scale storage is to bury it, but that’s basically a policy of out-of-sight, out-of-mind – we don’t yet know the full consequences. It’s also expensive and the waste has to be transported over long distances where the probability of a mishap is very real."
The nuclear is in fact a big part of his plan:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
And, of course, there's always Chernobyl.
Some snippets from history:
1994: McCain votes NO on continuing desert protection in California.
1997: McCain votes NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.
1999: His stance was basically that we should "preserve natural resources for the future."
2003: The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a rating of 53% -- again, not the worst, but not great -- which may indicate that he simply doesn't ever intend to make the global climate crisis a priority.
So, isn't McCain a big fan of the cap-and-trade program? That would certainly be step in the right direction, but too small a step (he can't alienate himself from big energy... after all, it's election time). Essentially McCain is calling for 1990 emission levels by 2020, and 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. That long-term target falls short of the 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends. David Roberts (Grist.org... again) writes, "[McCain] does, however, propose to allow unlimited use of domestic and international carbon offsets for compliance with the cap, at least initially. He would also give away rather than auction a substantial portion of the original pollution permits" (emphasis mine).
And just this week, both McCain and President Bush pushed for an increase in offshore drilling. I know what you're thinking: $4 gas and Middle East oil dependency. Bush is friends with the royal family of Saudi Arabia, and has invaded Iraq, which surely must have some oil, right? Who needs diplomacy and fair trade when you can just go take whatever you want?
Oh, and in Germany it's around 3.05 euros per liter... which brings us to a healthy $11.49/gallon. Quit your bitching about $4 gas. It's easier for everyone to adapt a little than for the already strained biosphere to bend any more for us.
On McCain's most recent speech about environmental policy, David Roberts (Grist.org) writes, "In fact, there [was] virtually no mention of any emission reduction policies outside of cap-and-trade -- no efficiency or fuel economy mandates, no electrical utility decoupling, no mention of public transit."
So, no mention of the widespread implementation of clean, carbon-neutral forms of renewable energy? We have the technology to do so much more. We should also possess the good judgment.
McCain is simply not going to be an effective leader when it comes to the problems of global climate change and the energy crunch. His overall plan is not even better than the Lieberman-Warner bill (that just got shot down by Republicans in the Senate), and is nowhere close to that of Barack Obama.
I will keep posting links to more stuff as I find it.
Like this:
"Depends on the definition of the word 'mandatory'
John McCain doesn't appear to understand his own emissions plan"
That's the headline.
Here's the story:
http://gristmill.grist.org
And now, dessert: http://www.youtube.com/wat
And second dessert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related
(Originally posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008)
Amendments:
#1 (originally posted June 19, 2008):
Of course I found more information the very morning after I originally posted this.
So, McCain just called for us to end the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, the same course of action recommended by Bush and Cheney. The funny thing (or not so funny) is when you compare this to his statements during election season in 2000. This is quoted from the official January 18, 2000, report by the Sustainable Energy Coalition:
"Senator John McCain, who criticized the Clinton Administration for its decision to extend 36 offshore oil leaves along the central California coast over the objections of that state's Governor and Attorney General, has promised to 'never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home.'"
The full report is here: http://www.eesi.org/public
#2 (posted June 21, 2008)
Bush is really making his push for offshore drilling (which both his father as President and his brother as Governor of Florida have opposed). His rationale speaks volumes: "Rising gasoline prices and economic uncertainty can affect everything from what food parents put on the table to where they can go on vacation" (emphasis mine). Sounds like more business-as-usual nonsense to me.
The problem is, we can't go about business as usual when the environmental crisis is at a tipping point. Bush also said, "If congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act." I think the environmental crisis is enough of a reason, don't you?
Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
No comments:
Post a Comment