Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

McCain's Not-So-Straight Talk on the Environment

Posted by Howie Klein, Down With Tyranny! at 8:34 AM on May 12, 2008.


The Senator's votes fail to live up to his rhetoric or his reputation on the environment.
mccain

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

I was just reading some more of Lincoln Chafee's fascinating book, Against The Tide, the chapter about how the Senate dealt with environmental issues in light of Cheney's success in persuading Bush-- if it took much, or even any persuasion-- to do a 180 on his campaign promises to be an environmentally friendly president. When Cheney announced to a gathering of Republican senators that the Regime had decided to throw away all their environmental pledges, the crowd burst out into a chorus of cowboy whoops and cheers. But Chafee-- at least in the part of the chapter I finished over dinner last night-- named McCain as one of the small cadre of Republicans who helped save ANWAR from the oil companies (a passion of Chafee's).

Today's Washington Post gets further into the weeds. Basically McCain is significantly better than Global Warming deniers like Inhofe... but not as good as the worst, most reactionary Democrats, anti-environmental hacks Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Max Baucus. There are also 9 Republicans with consistently better environmental voting records than McCain (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Judd Gregg, Gordon Smith, Arlen Specter, John Thune, John Sununu, Bob Corker, and Norm Coleman-- all of whom have barely mediocre environmental voting records).

The Post makes a point that McCain is "the most unpredictable, erratic" Republican who sometimes support pro-environmental policies.

McCain has made the environment one of the key elements of his presidential bid. He speaks passionately about the issue of climate change on the campaign trail, and he plans to outline his vision for combating global warming in a major speech today in Portland, Ore.

"I'm proud of my record on the environment," he said at a news conference Friday at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City. "As president, I will dedicate myself to addressing the issue of climate change globally."

But an examination of McCain's voting record shows an inconsistent approach to the environment: He champions some "green" causes while casting sometimes contradictory votes on others.

This year he scored the lowest of any member of Congress on environmental issues but that had more to do with him not voting than on voting badly. His lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24 percent (atrocious), compared with 86 for Obama and 86 for Clinton and Defenders of Wildlife gave him 38 percent in the 108th Congress and 40 in the 109th, both very mediocre. Let me quote the last Republican bullshit artist running for president and what he had to say about the environment before being elected (Sept 29, 2000):

"With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to rescue emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time."

Almost as soon as the Supreme Court declared him president, Bush peremptorily reneged on those promises without offering any excuses, although-- as though to rub salt in the wounds of citizens concerned with environmental issues-- he cynically called his pro-pollution legislation "Clear Skies."

Is there any reason to believe McCain would behave any differently. No, none at all. In fact, there is every reason, judging from past history that McCain would act just as badly. Late in 2005 when a key ANWAR vote came up, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund President Rodger Schlickheisen met with McCain-- who had flip flopped back and forth on the issue for years.

His answer disappointed them. In the brief meeting, the senator said he was unwilling to risk blocking a bill involving the military at a time of war-- even though it was clear the broader funding bill would pass quickly and by a wide margin if opponents managed to strip the ANWR provision from it. "We told him, 'This may be the key vote, this may be the time we win this,' " Schlickheisen recalled in an interview. "He said, 'Not on this bill.' That was it."

When Obama talks about McCain's environmental record, he points out that he has "opposed real solutions to our dependence on oil time and time again." And as if his spotty voting record warning isn't enough, one would have to be wary because of serially dishonest Joe Lieberman vouching for McCain's "good intentions." Holy Joe calls him "an environmental leader."

Digg!

Tagged as: environment, mccain, anwr


Broken Glass
This is no doubt one of the ugliest periods in American political history.
Post by DCap. October 11, 2008.
Bipartisan Concern About the Dangers of McPalin’s Hate-Mongering
"I accuse you of deliberately feeding the most unhinged elements of our society the red meat of hate ..."
Post by Emptywheel. October 10, 2008.
Stock Market Drops 107 Points During Bush's Speech on the Economy
That's the kind of confidence Bush inspires these days.
Post by Amanda Terkel. October 10, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Good article
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 13, 2008 10:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is certainly not a tree hugger, but he has seen for himself
that the glaciers are melting. John McCain would take some
small action. John McCain is not George W. "Burn the World"
Bush, but he would not take enough action. If John McCain had
been elected in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, we would not be
in Iraq and the environmental situation would be a little less bad.
In that sense, he should be allowed to distance himself from Bush.

I am not for John McCain. We need action against global
warming that none of the candidates has ever expressed. McCain
would spend maybe $5 Billion to fight global warming. Hillary
would spend $55 Billion. Obama would spend $60 Billion. $60
Billion is nowhere near enough. Tree hugging is a separate issue
from global warming. The only environmental issue that really
matters right now is global warming [GW]. GW is the only
environmental issue likely to make Homo Sapiens extinct in about
a century. GW is the only environmental issue that is making
thousands of species extinct every year now. McCain would
clearly not do as much as the Democrats would. It is a matter of
fine degrees that must be stated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]