It’s Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change
Thus far, the Democrats have dominated the media’s attentions as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton battle it for the nomination. True, it is hard to ignore innuendos about RFK’s assassination; however, it is time we start paying attention to the Republican nominee John McCain. Personally, I can’t imagine he will be elected, but I have been wrong before with my election predictions, and it is important to know where he stands on climate change.
Two weeks ago while campaigning in Oregon, McCain stood amongst wind turbines to talk climate change:
Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.
I agree with McCain on many levels, but what exactly are his climate change strategies beyond political rhetoric? According to Plenty Magazine, “He proposes a cap-and-trade scheme that will limit greenhouse gas emissions to sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050;” however, scientists, Obama, and Clinton recommend 80 percent reductions. McCain does not favor allowing companies to buy extra carbon allowances, and he supports carbon offsetting. The problem with McCain’s ideas on climate change is he supports tax payer subsidies for nuclear power and has voted several times against a renewable energy standard.
Nuclear power is not the answer, as the issue of waste disposal has not been resolved and there are safety concerns. Now, Senator McCain plans to “hijack” landmark legislation on global warming. The “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act” falls short of the 80% reduction of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels as recommended by scientists, and with the proposals supported by John McCain, it could be “the greatest greenwash of our generation.” Not only does the bill give carbon permits valued at one trillion dollars to the fossil fuel industry for free, McCain will only support the legislation if it takes funds away from clean energy sources, like wind and solar, and gives them to the nuclear power industry. What could have been real legislation to curb the effects on climate change will become a a vehicle for subsidizing the nuclear power industry if McCain has his way. Meanwhile, Senator Boxer is circulating a new version of the bill.
I won’t pretend to understand everything proposed by Lieberman, Warner, and Boxer, but at least McCain is not doubting global warming, as the current administration has done. Obviously, I am not a McCain supporter; however, when I hear him interviewed on a personal level, I like him. When he starts to talk to politics, I am reminded that he is a Republican and not the leader we need now. I actually voted for McCain once in a political maneuver as an independent California voter in the Republican primary. My efforts failed to win McCain the nomination over Bush, but I do think this country would have been better off after eight years of McCain rather than Bush. Of course, we would have been even better off after eight years of Gore.
Image: johnmccain.com
The difference between nuclear power and the other low emission alternative energy sources is that it actually produces vast amounts of power for a price that is competitive with coal, oil and natural gas.
I am not a huge fan of subsidies, even for nuclear power, but I reluctantly agree that the industry needs some government policy changes in order to encourage investors to take the risk that comes from trying to build very capital intensive projects, especially since we have not built any new commercial nuclear plants in more than 30 years here in the US.
There are many reasons why the industry needs some policy help, but not the least of them is the fact that the established fossil fuel energy industry has been very successful in their efforts to raise the “barriers to entry” for the competitive nuclear power business.
Did you know that a company wanting to build a new plant has to pay the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a fee of $258 for every hour that one of its regulators spends reviewing a license application? The estimates available so far is that the license applications that are currently being reviewed will take about 42 months – including several planned pauses in the process for public comments – and cost between $60-100 million in fees to the regulator. That does not even include the cost of setting aside the property for four years without being able to begin pouring the foundation.
Last year, nuclear power plants produced more than 800 billion kilowatt hours of very low emission electricity in the US.
Wind and solar power together produced about 26 billion kilowatt hours, despite decades worth of investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation schedules and renewable energy portfolio standards. Even though we have not built a new nuclear power plant in 40 years, the annual growth in nuclear power in most years between 1990 and 2008 was nearly as high as the total amount of wind and solar electricity produced.
[...] posts: US Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change Tags: President Carter, recycling, used nuclear fuel Add a comment or question Recommend this [...]
Update: John McCain will not support Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, because it does not give enough aid to the nuclear industry.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccains-incoherence-global-warming-reaches-new-heights
As a developer of renewable energy and an electrical engineer, I am, of course, in favor of extending subsidies for wind and solar generators. But, I also firmly believe that nuclear should be a part of our country’s energy resource plan. Most problems with storage and processing of waste have been solved, and nuclear provides baseload generation very cost-effectively and with little or no air emissions.
If “environmentalists” keep fighting nuclear then it will lead to more coal consumption as there are no current alternatives for cost-effective BASELOAD power. Baseload power is needed to balance the grid because most other renewable sources can not be scheduled.
So, for cost-effective baseload power, we burn coal. But coal releases CO2, NOx, SOx, and MORE RADIATION than nuclear per MWh produced. What’s more is that coal releases all of these nasties directly into the atmosphere instead of encasing it in glass where it can not leech into the environment a la nuclear.
Nuclear isn’t perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than any feasible alternative. America needs a complex energy porfolio with more wind, more solar power, and yes, more nuclear. Each technology has positives and negatives, and each is required.
[...] Want to Drill It’s Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change Addiction to Oil is not a Good Negotiation Position White House Newsflash: Global Warming VERY [...]
[...] Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change 75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030 [...]