McCain and Obama Take on Environmental Concerns
The presidential candidates propose plans to reduce global warming, find alternative energies
The carbon addiction. To a large extent, hypothetical numbers—80 percent of this, 60 percent of that—are meaningless in the absence of concrete plans for alternative, cleaner technologies. Here the candidates disagree broadly on how to fund them. Obama, hailing from a farming state, is a strong backer of incentives and tax breaks for wind and solar power, as well as for biofuels, including corn-based ethanol. In a recent speech, he proposed spending $150 billion to develop alternative energies. McCain, by contrast, tends to favor a more market-based approach. "In our quest for alternative energy," McCain said recently, "our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure." On the stump, he speaks favorably of wind and solar power. But in the past two years, he has missed votes that would have spurred research within these industries.
McCain, though he tends to oppose incentives for alternative energy, does not discount them altogether. He is a strong proponent of nuclear energy, which receives about $4 billion a year in federal support. He recently called for the construction of 45 nuclear reactors by 2030, perhaps as many as 100. "Clearly, Senator McCain sees nuclear power as one of the most critical parts of his energy policy, given that it produces 20 percent of electricity in the U.S. and doesn't produce greenhouse gases," says Scott Peterson of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Obama says nuclear energy deserves "a place at the table," but he has embraced it more hesitantly, citing unresolved concerns about waste disposal.
One problem confronting almost all renewable energy technologies is that none will replace fossil fuels in the near future. This fact, of course, doesn't jibe well with a fundamental political premise: Voters want relief now. As a result, both campaigns have been accused of pandering for votes. McCain's recent call for offshore drilling has raised questions of political expediency, as has his proposal of a gas tax "holiday" this summer. In 2003, McCain voted against allowing new oil exploration off the coasts of California and Florida and along the eastern seaboard. But in May, he reversed tack, saying that states should be given the right to approve drilling off their coastlines, though he still opposes drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, which he calls "a pristine place." His advisers say the shift comes in response to mounting economic challenges. With gas above $4 a gallon, the United States, they say, cannot afford to leave potential domestic supplies of oil unexplored. They also predict short-term benefits. Allowing drilling, McCain has said, will provide "psychological" relief to markets and will help lower prices. But critics counter that such proposals are misguided or even disingenuous. As evidence, they point to a 2007 energy report showing that offshore drilling won't yield "noticeable amounts of oil" until 2030, and that even then its impact on prices would be "insignificant."
Scientists, for their part, say the best immediate remedy for the country's energy and environment troubles is conservation. "Conservation is something we can do instantaneously," says Ronald Mitchell, a professor of political science at the University of Oregon. "In the 1970s, we decided to switch the national speed limit from 65 to 55 in response to the OPEC crisis. We could do that again." Neither candidate has made much ado about speed limits, but they do speak about fuel efficiency. These plans, too, would take time to implement. McCain recently announced a $300 million prize—to be funded, he says, by cutting a few "pork barrel projects"—for an electric car battery that will make plug-in vehicles commercially viable; Obama has called the proposal a "gimmick." In the Senate, Obama has supported increasing fuel-efficiency standards above 40 mpg as a way to reduce demand for oil; McCain has voted against them but says he supports tougher enforcement of existing standards.
Reader Comments
Kent Garber wrote:
“In the next 40 years, average global temperatures are expected to rise by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, causing profound disruptions in rainfall patterns, agriculture, wildlife, and human activity.”
Oh really? In 1988 James Hansen testified before congress also trying to scare us about global warming. See his predictions on page 7 of this PDF from NASA’s website:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
All satellite temperature data, including this from the University of Alabama at Huntsville proves that his predictions based on this theory were completely wrong. The predicted warming never occurred:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSEN_AND_CONGRESS.jpg
2008 was even colder than 1988. Had he predicted what actually happened, no one would have seen the need to waste hundreds of billions of dollars. Now the politicians are threatening to burden the economy with their Cap-and-Trade scheme, which amounts to a massive tax increase on all conventional energy usage, to be paid for by you every time you buy something manufactured or transported using energy, which includes everything you spend your money on. It’s ironic how they claim to be protecting the children from doomsday, when they are really impoverishing your children’s future with this additional tax burden. Here is more background on this deliberate hoax from 1988:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony/
31,478 American scientists signed a petition opposing the man-made global warming theory, proving Kent Garber wrong about his alleged consensus also. He cannot name anywhere near that number of scientists supporting this theory. These scientists’ reasoning is outlined in a peer reviewed journal article detailing the evidence that disproved the theory. Please follow this link to the article, the petition, and the complete list of names of these scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
We are being forced to pay for less economical sources of energy while being told falsely that they are viable alternatives. All of the so-called ‘alternative’ sources of energy, including wind and solar, equal less than one percent of mankind’s needs. Meanwhile our far more economical access to hydrocarbon energy and nuclear energy is being throttled for no good reason. Obviously Gore wouldn't mind impoverishing the rest of us to enrich himself with his ‘carbon trading’ scheme. With the size of his utility bills and the cost of jet fuel for his private jet flying him all over the world, he needs all the money he can get. If he was really worried about CO2, wouldn’t he act like he was worried about his own emissions, and energy consumption? Of course he is received like a hero in Hollywood; he makes hypocrisy fashionable.
Psychological Works
Psychological fund raising. Once the air is cleaned up and stays that way for ten to twenty years the youth will have become accustom to this and some will react on urge that something is wrong, panic of the few can cause a large resistance movement to form and ultimately if not arrested the youth will destroy the cities in a rebellion caused by influence that the air quality is so poor that a new standard was established to make it appear as if there are no pollutants and thus a psychological warfare against government will commence to destroy neighborhoods and cause panic in schools and sporting events will have to be cancelled because of this turmoil against society. This we can already see occurring in European countries, the youth are already claiming air quality standards are being changed intentionally, it is causing riots and automakers are complaining that their work to save the enviroment will accomplish nothing without standing by the previous standards established and arguing foul play in government because of the economic crash every nation is having which cuts into funding big projects to clean the environment and make firmer air quality standards.
Psychological Works
Psychological fund raising. Once the air is cleaned up and stays that way for ten to twenty years the youth will have become accustom to this and some will react on urge that something is wrong, panic of the few can cause a large resistance movement to form and ultimately if not arrested the youth will destroy the cities in a rebellion caused by influence that the air quality is so poor that a new standard was established to make it appear as if there are no pollutants and thus a psychological warfare against government will commence to destroy neighborhoods and cause panic in schools and sporting events will have to be cancelled because of this turmoil against society. This we can already see occurring in European countries, the youth are already claiming air quality standards are being changed intentionally, it is causing riots and automakers are complaining that their work to save the enviroment will accomplish nothing without standing by the previous standards established and arguing foul play in government because of the economic crash every nation is having which cuts into funding big projects to clean the environment and make firmer air quality standards.
advertisement
