The Curious Senator John McCain

Richmond, VA -- It's getting harder and harder to understand where John McCain stands on energy. Here's his story, just this year:

First he was against all subsidies. Then his policy staff told us that solar and wind did, after all, need tax credits even through McCain had voted against these. Then he was against subsidies again, except that there weren't enough of them for nuclear in the Warner-Lieberman climate change bill, so he couldn't support it. But he was definitely for renewables, efficiency, and for serious action on global warming. 

Then, today in Richmond, a donor offered him an entirely new version of his position, which McCain promptly embraced. McCain was gung-ho about nuclear power and expanded domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. When a donor in Richmond summed up his advice as "nuclear, and drill wherever we've got it," McCain responded: "You just gave my speech. Thank you, my friend."

This new position contradicts all previous versions of McCain's stated energy goals, makes doing anything meaningful about global warming impossible, and puts McCain solidly in the "all-oil, 24/7" Bush wing of American politics.

Comments

[BOB2]

Why did McCain flip flop on his green energy position? Maybe because he was for it, before he was against it? Or, maybe they hadn't tallied the focus group results for that day, and he didn't know which way to pander on the issue. Or, maybe he'd already used up his pandering quota for that day, by promising to cut the Federal gas tax for a couple of months, to insure that his oil company contributors made additional windfall profits? Or, maybe it's just another case of politics as usual, when it comes to environmental issues?

[Polar Bear]

Hey Pope, when is the story on Obama's flip-flop on nuclear reporting requirements coming. Remember, after he got a donation from Exelon's CEO, the company that has nuclear interests. LOL. Yea, I'm sure your looking into that because I'm sure you really do care about the environment Ha Ha

[John FDitzpatrick]

About 2 months ago I requested to know why the Sierra Club uses promotional gifts (the Sierra back pack to be precise) that are made in China, not exactly an environmentally friendly country and I gave examples in my letter to you of their less than environmentally friendly actions. To date no one has responded from the Sierra Club about this very controllable issue (don't buy goods made in China)on your part and now you raise other green issues. I appreciate your efforts to educate us on what we can do to make this a greener planet but you can't talk out of both side of your mouth. I support any effort to make this a greener earth and that includes boycotting any goods made in any environmentally unfriendly country and most especially an unfriendly country with which we are in a balance of trade deficit to the tune of $20 billion per month.

[Paul Cornett]

There can be no significant effect on global climate change without more investment in nuclear energy as well as solar, wind, etc. The Sierra Club leadership needs to get their collective heads out of the sand and be real environmentalists, not political polyannas.

[Polar Bear]

Notice how fast Pope changes the blog when he has to take heat from posters?

[Jerry Klinken]

Obama has a 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters and supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005, and supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 88 percent in 2005. He is a cosponsor of the most aggressive climate-change legislation in the Senate, which would reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a score of ZERO. According to the scorecard, McCain was the only member of Congress to skip all 15 crucial environmental votes scored by LCV. McCain''s lifetime LCV score of 24 shows a history of siding with the polluters and special interests, and a consistent pattern of ducking important environmental votes. Out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote last year.

On February 7, 2008, McCain prevented the Senate from advancing an economic stimulus package that included important clean energy incentives.
Even though John McCain was in Washington, he was the only Senator who missed the vote, which resulted in its defeat. He just couldn't be bothered.

Remember one of Bush’s 2000 campaign promises was a “commitment to a new era of environmental protection” and to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But in record time he broke his promise by refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty limiting global warming gases. This was the most significant environmental commitment made under his campaign, and the president walked away from it in exactly 53 days.

Do you really think McCain will go against the wishes of the special interestes and impact in any way huge oil profits? Not a chance - he is a Republican after all. If McCain gets elected it will just be another 4 years of what we've seen in the last 8. Forget about any serious committment to clean, sustainable energy. Big oil will continue to rule.

[Carl Pope's father]

It's very simple idiots. We are in the middle east looking for more oil because the U.S doesn't allow itself to look for it in their own property. Furthermore, unlike France the U.S needs more oil because they can't make cheaper electricity to extract hydrogen from water to power fuel cell vehicles.

[Carl Pope's father]

It's very simple idiots. We are in the middle east looking for more oil because the U.S doesn't allow itself to look for it in their own property. Furthermore, unlike France the U.S needs more oil because they can't make cheaper electricity to extract hydrogen from water to power fuel cell vehicles.