McCain’s Choice of Palin Shows Disregard For Environment, Science September 23, 2008

In The Washington Post, Julie Eilperin examines the differences between the views on climate change of John McCain and Sarah Palin.  While McCain has spoken broadly of his belief in the contribution of human activities to climate change, Palin only acknowledges that temperatures are warming but refuses to state on the record that she believes humans have anything to do with the changes.

Although Palin established a sub-cabinet to deal with climate change issues a year ago, she has focused on how to adapt to global warming rather than how to combat it, and she has publicly questioned scientists’ near-consensus that human activity plays a role in the rising temperatures.

Perhaps of more concern to me is that she has not produced any reasoning–no alternate science, not even any alternate explanation NOT based on science–for her disbelief in the humuan impacts on the climate.  This mirrors her rejection of the science on polar bear habitat:

Initially, Palin said her state’s fish and wildlife department had conducted a review showing that the bears were not facing extinction. But Steiner, the professor, obtained an e-mail exchange showing that state officials concurred with federal scientists’ predictions that all of Alaska’s polar bears would disappear by mid-century if trends in greenhouse gas emissions continued.

Scott Schliebe, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist who oversaw the scientific analysis for the polar bear listing, said Palin and her deputies “had some strong views that were different from ours, and we thoroughly reviewed them. We didn’t find their views had merit from the mainstream consensus of scientific thinking, which was backed by data.”

One of the common criticisms of the Bush administration from scientists and those concerned about science (environmental and medical) is that the administration and its appointees reject the best available science on issues and instead make decisions based on personal agendas.  By choosing Palin as his running mate, McCain has demonstrated that he is willing to align himself with someone who does more of the same.  I had been heartened, orginally, by McCain’s positions on many environmental issues.  Palin is the nail in the coffin on my belief that McCain would represent any change from the current administration on important issues like energy and respect for science in shaping policy.

Sarah Palin on the Environment, II August 30, 2008

In an interview with Newsmax, Sarah Palin announces that she is a doubter that global warming is man-made, and talks about how drilling for more oil and natural gas will solve the energy problems of the United States.  In fact, she criticizes George Bush’s lack of action on allowing more oil drilling in Alaska. 

The most ironic thing about this interview, for me, was that she first outlined her reasons for being anti-abortion,

   ”I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.’

and then followed this with her views on the importance of exploiting oil and natural gas.  So apparently the “future and potential” of human life does not need protecting from things like the proven detrimental health effects of air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels, and the negative effects of climate change–the intensification of tropical storms (were the victims of Katrina done exercising their potential, in her belief?), the loss of water and agricultural resources, and the more rampant spread of disease?  Interesting…

Palin and the Environment August 29, 2008

Sarah Palin hasn’t been in public office long enough to have much of a record on the environment, but her response to the listing of the polar bear on the Endangered Species list gives a hint of her potential to follow in Dick Cheney’s footsteps.  According to Reuters, Palin chooses oil profits over the well-being of biodiversity and environmental health, and supported the suing of the federal government over the listing of the polar bear.

McCain Doesn’t Lead, or Even Follow, on Clean Energy August 29, 2008

When a number of politicians, public officials, and business people gathered in Nevada for the National Clean Energy Summit last week, the non-partisan group summarized their visions for America’s energy future with recommendations for action by the federal government, states, and others.  ThinkProgress.org has compiled McCain’s voting history on six of the main recommendations…and interestingly, his stated policy at his campaign web-site is not backed up with action.  In fact, he has voted against or been absent from key votes on many energy policy bills.  Whatever side you are on, you should check it out.

Boehner takes vacation from golfing to criticize others on vacation August 12, 2008

I hate hypocrisy.  And I hate that the Republican party can’t seem to actually discuss energy policy in an intelligent manner.  As an independent, I try to listen to both sides.  But when I get e-mails like this, which assume that I can’t read the Washington Post, or watch TV and process the information I see, it makes me angry.  Look what I found in my inbox today:

Dear Friend,

More than a week ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress voted to leave Washington, skipping town for five weeks without passing legislation to help lower gas prices. 

But while Democrats have been on vacation, House Republicans have continued to fight for solutions to high gas prices.   

Despite Democrats killing the lights, shutting off the cameras, and cutting the microphones, Republican Members of Congress have stayed on the House floor to demand a vote on the American Energy Act and talk with visitors to our nation’s Capitol about the need for an “All of the Above” energy reform plan.

The support from the public in the House chamber is overwhelming — as is the support from Americans across the country.  And Americans everywhere are asking:

“Why won’t the Democrats allow a vote on legislation that increases the supply of American-made energy, improves energy conservation and efficiency, and promotes the development and use of alternative and renewable energy technology?”

…

The Democrats in Congress believe the solution to the energy crisis is electing more Democrats who support Speaker Pelosi and her radical liberal friends who think “we’re better off without cheap gas.”  Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s solution to the energy crisis is simply about checking the air pressure on your car’s tires.

…

Sincerely,

Robert M. “Mike” Duncan Chairman, Republican National Committee

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) House Republican Leader

 

Now, Boehner has been talking big about not taking a vacation, but he has been doing a lot of golfing in Ohio while supposedly ’solving’ the energy problem…

Furthermore, McCain (who hasn’t cast a vote in the Senate for months), has missed votes on many energy-related issues.  Not inspiring a lot of confidence in me.

‘It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.’ August 6, 2008

Visit Think Progress for a great summary of McCain’s pitiful attempt to attack Obama’s energy policy.  So much for intelligent discourse…

Remember middle school, where it was way more important to try to be cool in front of your friends rather than actually express knowledge or understanding?

Cost of Nuclear Power: Also on the Rise August 6, 2008

The Energy Department has announced that the planned nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain will now cost 67% (38% excluding inflation) more than previously anticipated, according to Reuters.  In the meantime, nuclear power is one of McCain’s major solutions to the greenhouse gas issue.  

While nuclear power is in fact much ‘greener’ than coal or other fossil-fuel based means of making electricity, when measured in CO2 emissions, it is extremely expensive.  Building nuclear power plants costs a tremendous amount of money, and when the power plants are are taken offline (the processes involved in generating nuclear power lead to relatively fast breakdown of the power plants), the expenses of disposing of tainted building materials, etc. is large as well.  Another major problem with nuclear power, however, is waste disposal.  The US government is contractually obligated to dispose of high-level nuclear waste from nuclear power sites in the US (it has collected a tax from these plants for decades, to pay for this) and yet has yet to set up a functioning site (or sites) for this disposal.  Instead, all the high level waste produced thus far is sitting in less secure sites around the US.  

Before McCain goes on another minute about how he thinks nuclear power will solve all our energy problems, I think he should focus on the realities holding us back from doing so.  Does he understand that the US can’t even deal with the waste it already has?  What does he plan to do with it?  Does he understand the capital costs involved?  Who will fund all this building?  Who will defend the power plants from terrorist attack, if all our troops are still abroad protecting our oil fighting the war on terror?  What will be different about McCain’s plans than the current state of things in the US–where we haven’t brought a new nuclear power plant online since 1996!?    

Or is this just another campaign ploy before going back to the same old, same old?  Leaving the problem for our grandchildren to solve, rather than being pro-active and taking a stance on green energy that could allow us to re-emerge as technological leaders in the global marketplace?

McCain Advisor Hints at Cap-and-Trade (Flip-)Flop July 29, 2008

As I commented earlier this month, McCain’s campaign website outlines a fairly reasonable plan for cap-and-trade carbon emissions policy.  But recent comments by Steve Forbes, a McCain campaign advisor, bring into question the sincerity of the McCain camp on their plans…

(Crap, and I’ve always like Forbes…)

The Candidates on Nuclear Power July 23, 2008

NPR reported on the positions of McCain and Obama regarding nuclear power.  The comparison is fair and well-researched, in my opinion; the only failing of the report is that it neglects to rate either candidate on pronunciation of the word ‘nuclear’.    The report is at NPR for you to read, or listen to, yourself. 

In my opinion, nuclear power should not, as Obama said, be taken off the table.  But Obama’s lack of detail on his plan is worrisome.  Then again, John McCain’s position on disposing of waste at Yucca Mountain only on the presidential campaign trail is worrisome too.  The problem with the Yucca Mountain situation is that whether we develop more nuclear power plants or not, the ones we have are still creating waste.  And, as one of my students put it on his final exam last year, “we have a problem with nuclear waste because we always wait until after we make waste to decide what to do with it and it piles up and is dangerous and no one wants it.”  Which was not really the depth of the issue I was looking for on the exam, but it struck me as summing up a lot of our environmental problems…

Obama and McCain: Issues for Energy/Environment, 2 July 20, 2008

This is the second installment in my personal comparison of the environmental platforms of John McCain and Barack Obama.  Both candidates, to a large extent, combine their plans for the environment with their energy plans, and thus I will discuss their plans for reducing US greenhouse gas emissions by industry.  Both McCain and Obama support a cap-and-trade policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and both favor heavy investment in research and commercialization of alternate energy and transportation options.  The major differences between the overarching energy plans are thus the actual ‘caps’, or the greenhouse gas emission limits, and whether the pollution allowances for businesses will be initially auctioned or allotted. 

John McCain sets out a timetable for greenhouse gas emissions, with a target of 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  Barack Obama wants an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050, but unlike McCain, he does not specify targets along the way.  McCain plans originally to “allot” total permits equal to the greenhouse gas emissions cap, and market participants (McCain specifies electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business) would either hae to reduce their emissions to reach their allowable emissions, or purchae offsets for cash to cover 100% of their required reductions.  McCain adds, further down the webpage, “Emissions Permits Will Eventually Be Auctioned To Support The Development Of Advanced Technologies.”  Obama requires pollution permits to be auctioned.  He also plans to spend some of the revenues on the development of clean energy, investing in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs. 

Neither candidate addresses how emissions will be monitored and regulated.  I imagine enforcement of this will be expensive…I, for one, would like more detail on that.

Both candidates emphasize the need to heavily promote alternative energy research, as well as streamlining the move from R&D to the marketplace for green technology.  Both candidates acknowledge that low-income families might be more affected as these transitions take place, and plan to reduce those impacts (Obama specifies that that would include job-training; McCain does not give details).  Both candidates envision America leading the global market in alternative energy technology. 

Wow, I just discovered that there is a little ‘presentation’ on the McCain website that has a little cartoon-ish example of how market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions works.  It is complete with two ‘thermometers,’ one for carbon emissions and one for American jobs.  As McCain’s plan plays out, carbon emissions go down and American jobs go up!  But it still doesn’t give more details.  Obama’s website does not have thermometers, although really I was originally just looking for actual written statements of positions. 

Anyway, except for the 20% difference in greenhouse gas emission reduction goals by 2050 (when neither will be in office, anyway) and the delayed auction of emission allowances by McCain, both candidates seem to grasp the necessity of drastic change in our emissions.  Both realize that America needs an input of R&D money to take the lead on clean energy technology.  There are a lot more details to the energy policies and environmental policies, but on this major part of the issue the candidates both show a refreshing perspective compared to the current administration.  Hopefully both of them are sincere.