Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

McCain Is Absent on America's Energy Crisis, Misses Eight Key Votes

By Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times. Posted August 14, 2008.


In the last year, McCain has been a no show for every vote on a crucial piece of renewable energy legislation.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America's energy crisis. "Tell them to come back and get to work!" McCain bellowed.

Sorry, but I can't let that one go by. McCain knows why.

It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill -- S. 3335 -- that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits -- which expire in December -- to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America's energy profile.

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year -- which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn't leave his office to vote.

"McCain did not show up on any votes," said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain's campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines -- the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.

Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either -- which is equally inexcusable in my book -- but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits.

The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don't want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don't believe in renewable energy.

What impact does this have? In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31 -- when the credits expire -- and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCain's home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power.

But because of the Senate's refusal to extend the solar tax credits, "we cannot get our bank financing," said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. "Without the credits, the numbers don't work." Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.

Roger Efird is president of Suntech America -- a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. They've been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: "Don't set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we don't have stability in the incentive programs."

One of the biggest canards peddled by Big Oil is that, "Sure, we'll need wind and solar energy, but it's just not cost effective yet." They've been saying that for 30 years. What these tax credits are designed to do is to stimulate investments by many players in solar and wind so these technologies can quickly move down the learning curve and become competitive with coal and oil -- which is why some people are trying to block them.

As Richard K. Lester, an energy-innovation expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes, "The best chance we have -- perhaps the only chance" of addressing the combined challenges of energy supply and demand, climate change and energy security "is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply and use and deploy them on a very large scale."

This, he argues, will take more than a Manhattan Project. It will require a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive -- and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency -- we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.

That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid -- so bloody stupid -- that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they'll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power -- when you didn't.

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

See more stories tagged with: mccain, alternative energy, renewable energy, clean technology

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:
Falling down on the job.
Posted by: LionHeart on Aug 14, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems politics for political sake rules the day. McCains opposition to subsidize industries misses the main point - more drilling alone isnt the answer. If the Fed's wont help spur industries and drive policy who will.

We pay these people to be there and vote, I cannot understand why Obama nor McCain would miss such an important vote.

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

» RE: Falling down on the job. Posted by: richholland
Exploration, not production.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 14, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Texas A&M graduate with a BS in Geology and former ARCO employee (seismologist), I'm all for exploring new petroleum regions, including offshore areas.

By allowing such access, we can determine how much oil will be available to us in the future -- important information for a new energy plan, Democrat or Republican. Plus the mere knowlege of potential petroleum deposits would put downward prssure on worldwide crude prices.

However, I am against producing those areas until oil companies are forced to share their obscene profits with the American people.

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

environment destroyers
Posted by: Lauren on Aug 14, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don't want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don't believe in renewable energy.

Who are these 'hardcore senators'? We need a list. They may be motivated by their religious beliefs to attack the environment.

If this is what motivates them, we can hardly leave them in office. That attitude is homicidal. Think of the children and the long term impact these people are having on our world.

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

» RE: environment destroyers Posted by: jstepp590
Why bother relying on large scale power plants? Let people put their own solar panels and wind turbs
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 14, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who the hell invited this neo-liberal POMPOUS FRAUD ?!?

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

election
Posted by: jstepp590 on Aug 14, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This election is about many issues like this. McBush will not do what needs to be done. Obama will a lot of times if not every time. I'll take a maybe over a no any day.

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

Hard to believe
Posted by: tommy_slothrop on Aug 14, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet published an article by this militaristic cretin.

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

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Fight back against Jerome Corsi's scurrilous attack on Sen. Obama
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 14, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just got an email from the DNC that said the following:

Join the DNC Rapid Response Team
As Democrats, we need to be prepared with the truth about John McCain and the Republicans.

Sign up for the DNC Rapid Response Team now so you can help fight smears, spread the truth, and take positive action.


Here is the link: Fight Obama smears

*Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican and ardent Obama supporter.
Seven Reasons to Vote Against Unfit McCain

*For the benefit of first-time AlterNet visitors.

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

"Competitive" means what?
Posted by: oldecodger on Aug 14, 2008 9:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Friedman is close to a major point, but did not quite clinch it. And it is key to understanding the whole situation. Yes, we need what we normally call subsidies, major ones, and quickly, to get the energy system on another track, but it is fundamentally erroneous to say we want to get solar and wind competitive to coal and oil, as if their pricing were some proper reference point.

Coal and oil have long been given an unimaginable subsidy, without which they would be the high-priced fuels. They started dumping their fossil carbon into the world’s atmosphere, from a slow and early starting point 250-plus years ago before anyone understood what that meant—and have just kept on. They should probably be charged for half the damage of Katrina, half the damage of the Burma cyclone, for the Mississippi Valley floods of this year, for half of bill for California’s early forest fires, and a steep fee for the general drying out of the American West and of Australia, plus for a lot of tornado damage. They owe our children and grandchildren in spades for manifold future likely troubles. They will eventually be proven reasonably liable for the murder of millions by starvation.

That is quite a subsidy package.

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

It should also be noted
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Aug 16, 2008 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should also be noted

1. As this article points out, McCain does not support Renewable Energy

2. McCain's former Cap&Trade bill is weaker than the current weakest Cap&Trade bill out there.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/16/223415/517

3. And it looks like he doesn't even want to follow through with that much either.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/16/124515/466/

4. McCain's entire low carbon strategy can be summarized as "Gigantic porkbarrel for the Nuclear industry". As if more than half the R&D budget for the entire electricity sector wasn't enough. (And some support for Carbon Sequestration, which is similarly pathetic)

_

To say that McCain supports meaningfully Renewable Energy and meaningfully dealing with Global Warming would be a lie.

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

» RE: why are Posted by: walldodger1969
Subsidies
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Aug 16, 2008 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal and Oil get gigantic subsidies, period.
greyfalcon.net/subs.png
greyfalcon.net/afpc.png
greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png

And oh yeah, guess you didn't know that "Refined Coal" is a "Renewable" Energy Resource.....
/story/2008/7/22/9564/67669#comment1
org/story/2008/8/4/154146/9606#comment10

[« 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