Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Palin: McCain Won't Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Joseph Romm, Huffington Post. Posted October 29, 2008.


Sarah Palin just helped clarify McCain's double-talk on global warming: He doesn't think the government should do anything to stop it.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Voters who care about either global warming or clean energy have only one choice -- and it isn't McCain-Palin.

It's time to stop trying to guess whether the latest McCain campaign gaffe revision on global warming means the Arizonan has walked away from his previous support for mandatory government control of greenhouse gases. He has.

That should have been clear from McCain's repeated rejection of the word "mandatory" to describe his program, his choice of a global warming denier for vice president, and his failure to even mention global warming during his acceptance speech. Most recently, his chief economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said on Sunday that McCain does not agree with the Supreme Court decision that labels carbon dioxide a pollutant and requiring EPA to regulate it. He labels Obama's decision to obey the Supreme Court decision "a draconian regulatory approach."

Now the McCain campaign has decided to eliminate the ambiguity entirely in the desperate and erratic final days of his campaign. In her big greenwashing energy speech at an Ohio solar energy company, Palin was as blunt as possible in her prepared (and delivered) remarks:

And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders that they must follow -- "so says government".


The final three words were ones she added, but the prepared text alone leaves no room for doubt. A McCain-Palin administration will not be issuing new orders that businesses must follow to control greenhouse gas emissions. It will use a voluntary or incentive-based approach, one that has never worked in any country to restrain emissions growth.

McCain and his campaign have made a concerted effort to reassure conservatives he's not going to take strong action on climate, while hoping that moderates would be fooled just like some Bush voters were in 2000 ignore all this talk, which itself is a core campaign strategy of doubletalk (see "Memo to media: McCain doubletalks to woo conservatives and independents at the same time").

The Palin speech was the last piece of the puzzle. For one last time, let's consider the increasingly sorry history of the McCain campaign on climate and clean energy:

Remember, it was Bush's Vice President, Dick Cheney, who called Bush's promised to regulate utility carbon emissions "a mistake" in March 2001, and Cheney is probably the main reason Bush walked away from his commitment.

So perhaps we should start listening to McCain's VP choice, as well as McCain himself, and all of his advisers, on climate and clean energy issues.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, election08, mccain, palin, greenhouse emissions

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

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:
Tell me something that ISN'T as obvious as the nose on your face.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 29, 2008 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why vote for Obama rather than McCain:

1. Obama would require ALL CO2 production to fall under the
cap and trade scheme. McCain would give freebies to the worst
coal burning power plants.

2. Obama would ask advice from unbiased real scientists, such as
the government's own, professors at universities and Nobel
laureates. McCain would ask advice from coal company
executives.

3. Obama has an obvious IQ advantage over McCain and Biden
has a very obvious IQ advantage over Palin.

4. Sarah Palin is obviously, demonstrably insane. Anybody who
thinks the earth is only 6000 years old has got to be crazy or living
in the 17th century.

5. If we don't take drastic action immediately, civilization will fall
when food production becomes impossible in the American
midwest. 99.99% of us will die in that fall, including YOU. It is
obvious from the above that McCain will not take the action
necessary. Obama will become a convert to my way of thinking
when he gathers his brain trust. McCain will never gather any
truly independent experts. Palin will take us backward and into
destruction.

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

What the coal companies know that Joseph Romm and Arianna Huffington don't, or do they own coal company stock?:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 29, 2008 5:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave
power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and
wave power can replace coal, and they know it. If you quit being afraid of
nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind,
solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy.
ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal
out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So
here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die either when [not
if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out of the ocean and Homo
"Sapiens" goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and
live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks around "Sapiens" because it
is not clear that most of us have enough brains to avoid extinction when it is
clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed out. Nuclear is the safe path.

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

Vote against the Republican war against science.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 29, 2008 6:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "The Republican War on Science" by Chris
Mooney, 2005, Basic Books.

It has the following URLs:
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
http://www.chriscmooney.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05268/576883.stm

See also:
"Undermining Science, suppression and distortion in the
Bush Administration" by Seth Shulman, 2006
www,ropercenter.uconn.edu

"The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney says:

Because Trofim Lysenko convinced Josef Stalin that
genetics is wrong, 12 million people died of starvation.
The coal companies convinced President George W. Bush
[and Senator Inohe] that global warming hasn't happened
and 12 hundred people died in hurricanes in 2005. For the
same reason, people died in the wildfires in Oklahoma. 12
hundred is less than 12 million, but GWB is still comparable
to Stalin. Both adopted anti-science policies for ideological
reasons and thereby murdered large numbers of their own
citizens.

The US economy has been devastated by George W.
Bush's war on science. Sarah Palin would make a full-
blown depression a lot worse.

There is something that needs to be made explicit: Truth
is not determined by a vote of scientists. Scientists are not
authorities. Nature is the Only authority. There is only
one vote that counts, and Nature casts it. It isn't just "not
nice" to fool Mother Nature, it is impossible. Scientists
understand and believe this so innately that they never say
it, but other people may think that scientists wield power or
authority.
Reference: book: "Science and Immortality" by Charles B.
Paul 1980 University of California Press:
The Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791)
page 99: "Science is not so much a natural as a moral
philosophy".
page 106: Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the
Only authority. When you try to disobey Nature [In
older language: "When you try to tell God how to run the
Universe".], the result is less subtle than a train wreck: The
rocket explodes on the launch pad. Oklahomans die in
wild fires when it should be winter. The Gulf coast suffers
the worst hurricane season ever. Tornado season extends
into January.

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

Gosh... someone's wound up.
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Oct 29, 2008 8:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, actually wind and solar can easily replace coal.

The recently downsized CSM covered the story:

How to generate power without fossil fuels or nuclear, but so far none of the major U.S. papers have covered it.

A more thorough analysis is here:
IPS: ENVIRONMENT: Massive Shift to Clean Energy Could Start Tomorrow

The technology is there, all that is needed in political and economic motivation. As far as nuclear - well, it's pretty maxed out right now. The main issue there is adequate water supplies, accident prevention, and hot fuel rod storage and eventual disposal. You can add on the gigantic costs of reactor decommissioning - it's really not going to do any more for us than it does already (which is quite a bit). Nuclear fuel is also non-renewable, unlike sunlight and wind.

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

» RE: Gosh... someone's wound up. Posted by: peacefullaim
Your Reality Check is in the mail...
Posted by: MizuInOz on Nov 4, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) No matter what anyone says there is no "clean" coal process at the present time. The water used to remove the fines (very small particles of coal dust that can be explosive and also contribute to increased CO2, NOX & SOX emissions) is used as part of the hydro (water) carbon (coal) process. And when you use the H in H2O you have two O (oxygen) molecules left - they bind with carbon and produce - hmmm CO2. Does that sound clean to you?

2) The greatest use of coal is not to burn it (we have known this since the 1800s) but to do two things:

a) Convert the coal (including the fines) to a plasma state and extract the energy produced directly to electricity - no burning of coal. It is called MHD or Magnetohydrodynamics. It was proposed by people at the Department of Energy during the Carter Administration (had a coop agreement for development with Russia, too) The process at the time was only 6% efficient - still better than burning coal, by the way; so it was scrapped.

The coal mining cabal had presentations made to them and they asked about efficiency and amount of tonnage used per Kilowatt produced. When the coal folks learned that they would only be selling 50 to 25% of their current tonnage to get the same result, they killed it through their lobbying efforts.

b) The second use is - after the MHD process, you extract the 29 usable elements contained in "raw" coal and sell them for various industrial uses. Still not burning the coal.

In regards to MHD - I have been working on a new process that increases the efficiency to about 65% and could go higher. I am using all private funds because I can't get government back, for some strange reason. Hmmm

Cheers.

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

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement