McCain’s Plan for Fighting Global Warming

September 29, 2008

I know that everybody is worked up right now about the Wall Street mortgage crisis and what sort of leadership Barack Obama and John McCain will show regarding the Bush administration’s proposed $700 billion federal bailout, the cost of which will be borne by taxpayers. While that’s a pretty tall stack of deceased presidents, in my view, it’s not the campaign issue with the biggest ultimate consequences, both in terms of economics and impact on our way of life. No, that would be the issue of global warming, and what to do about it. Look at it this way. According to a Natural Resources Defense Council study, if we don’t do something to slow the rate of climate change, by the end of this century the U.S. will be spending $950 billion annually just to cope with water shortages. That’s the equivalent of taxpayers having to bail out Wall Street every single year.

Of course, the U.S. wouldn’t be the only nation to feel the pain. In a 2006 study for the British government, economist Sir Nicholas Stern forecast that in coming decades, the effects of climate change — from flooded cities to withered cropland — could cause the global economy to shrink by an astonishing 20 percent. As Stern wrote:

The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.

Another 2007 study by British scientists warned that we have to take action over the next 10 years to avert this global catastrophe. That means we can’t afford to have another U.S. president like George W. Bush, who not only pulled the U.S. out of the 1997 Kyoto accord, the first international effort to fight climate change, but actually censored reports by government scientists to play down the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Fortunately, this time around, at least, both candidates acknowledge that climate change is a problem that can’t be ignored. But which one has the best plan and is most likely to actually accomplish it?

I want to give each candidate the space he deserves, so this week we’ll look at what McCain is proposing. Next week, we’ll look at Obama’s ideas.

McCain deserves a certain amount of credit for even daring to take a position on this issue, since a May 2008 poll showed that only 27 percent of Republicans believe that humans are causing global warming, and fewer than half even believe that the Earth’s temperature has been rising at all.  Nevertheless, during the New Hampshire primary campaign in January, with his candidacy on the line, McCain proclaimed that “I will make global warming a priority.” That earned him derision from talk-radio bloviator Rush Limbaugh — who called McCain’s position “embarrassing” and “frightening” — but somehow, it didn’t hurt McCain that much, because he went on to become his party’s nominee.

According to McCain’s campaign Web site, he favors creation of a carbon cap-and-trade system, under which the government would impose a ceiling on total emissions and then issue permits to companies and others, allowing each to emit a portion of that total. The idea is that if a manufacturing or power plant is able to reduce or eliminate its emissions, the owner can then sell some or all of its credits to someone else, creating an economic incentive to clean up the atmosphere. McCain would gradually lower the carbon emissions ceiling, aiming for a reduction to 2005 levels by the end of his first term. Additionally, a McCain administration eventually would switch to auctioning off the permits, and use a portion of the proceeds to finance research into technologies that would help to curb emissions.

McCain likes the idea of electric cars — he’d give a $5,000 tax credit to anyone who buys a “zero carbon emission car,” when one is developed. To further that end, he  wants to offer a $300 million prize to the first company or inventor to develop a battery that can “leapfrog” the abilities of current hybrid and electric vehicles. Of course, an electric car is only as carbon-free as the power source that charges it. McCain says he would promote the development of carbon-free energy alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric and solar power, but in truth he isn’t willing to put any real money into them, beyond a vague promise of tax credits. (It’s worth mentioning that as a U.S senator, McCain in 2005 voted against an amendment to an energy bill that would have required utility companies to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.)

Instead, McCain wants to turn in a big way to nuclear power (a solution that we’ve discussed previously in this blog). McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030. His Web site conveniently leaves out how much that would cost or who would foot the bill, but Bloomberg News reports that the price could be as high as $315 billion, and that the federal government probably will have to guarantee the construction loans to utility companies — which means that taxpayers might have to pick up the tab if the plants aren’t finished on time. McCain’s Web site also neglects to mention the problem of what to do with the radioactive waste produced by all these new plants. In 2007, he told reporters that he supported a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But that notion is decidedly unpopular among the residents of what is turning out to be a crucial swing state, so lately, his campaign has been promoting the idea of shipping the waste to Siberia. (Perhaps his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has claimed expertise in dealing with Russia because “you can actually see Russia from land here,”  can negotiate the deal.)

But simply reducing U.S. carbon emissions won’t be enough to curb global warming, as long as China and India are building carbon-belching coal-burning power plants in huge numbers. McCain would address this problem, indirectly, by investing $2 billion a year in developing carbon sequestration technology, which would capture and store emissions before they can add to the greenhouse effect. He’d then try to sell the Indians and Chinese on using the technology themselves.

So there you have it — carbon cap-and-trade, electric cars powered by nukes, and “clean coal.” Would McCain’s plan make a serious dent in global warming? Or is it simply an excuse to pump up the nuclear power industry at taxpayers’ expense? Express your opinion below.

Photo: iStock

Comments

[Sean Janoe]

Hey thats a little biased

but check this out its called the milankovich Hypothesis

it states a more logical explanation towards global warming

without using human interaction or carbonemissions as the cause.

but pure celestial mechanics.

However, by no means is this an excuse to keep using carbon emission automobile. I think it is embarassing that we are dependent on such a inefficent slow energy at this day in age. when we could be looking through the window of the future heck even perpetual motion devices with the capabilitie of accellerating to 300,000km/s is possible but our primitive society would rather act like the moving fast in thier hunk accelerating to 150km/h running off dead stuff

just think of it this way... if an extra terrestrial civilization came to visit us wouldnt it be a little embarrassing to allow them to witness our paramount in society has only left us driving cars running off of 1000000 year old feecle matter and dead stuff....??? lol

the article is below

and one last thing...

MCCAIN ALL THE WAY!

MILANKOVICH HYPOTHESIS/LAW:
[FACTOR #1]the small changes in earths orbit, in precession, and in inclination affects earths climate and can trigger an ice age.
Earths orbit varies slightly over 100,000 years. Present day earth's orbit caries it 1.7 percent closer than average to the sun during northern hemispher winters and 1.7 percent farther than average in northern hemispher summers

[FACTOR #2]The earths axis is also at work precession causes earth;s axis to sweep around a conewith a period of about 26,000 years. which creates waried seasons. the northern summers now occur at 1.7 % farther from the sun but 13,000 years northern summers at will be 1.7 % closer to the sun. so northern summers are hotter thus melting the ice glaciers away

[FACTOR #3] The inclination ofthe earths equator to its orbit. Currently at 23.5 degrees, this angle varies from 22 degrees to 24 degrees with a period of roughly 41,000 years.*when inclination is greater seasons are more severe*

[Nick Young]

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.

[Caffeine Driven Stress Magnet]

I think whatever points McCain gets for recognizing the need to combat global warming are negated by the fact that he picked a running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, who has said that she doesn't believe that humans are contributing to climate change.

[Natural Man]

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
cause none of them can stop the time.
--Bob Marley

[Obamarama]

This plan is typical McCain--all bluster, no attention to the details. How long would it take to safely build 45 new nuclear power plants? My guess is that it would take decades--time that we don't have. Wind, solar and geothermal plants could be built and brought on line much more quickly. In the meantime, we should be concentrating on redesigning everything from appliances to factory production lines to be more energy efficient. We also could actually build that natural gas pipeline from Alaska, the one that Palin is trying to claim credit for, even though it doesn't yet exist. Natural gas is a far cleaner fuel than oil or coal. If we switched over to using more natural gas for electricity generation and to power vehicles, that would be a huge plus.

[Skeptic]

Here's a detailed critique-debunking of the Milankovitch Hypothesis by an astronomer-blogger.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2007/12/travails-of-milankovitch-hypothesis.html

Additionally, USGS says that study of the Devil's Hole cave in Nevada contradicts the Milankovitch hypothesis, regarding the timing and duration of the Pleistocene ice ages.
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/devils.html

[Ron Gibson]

I'm in favor of nuclear power so I think this is a good plan.

[Astroboy]

VOTE FOR MCCAIN, BECAUSE HE SINGS BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Laura]

You're not factoring in the effect of McCain's plan to drill offshore for more oil. When that oil is burned by automobiles, it will add to our output of greenhouse gases, negating whatever reductions McCain might achieve by switching from coal to nuclear.

Vote for Obama/Biden--they're the ones with a real plan to fight global warming and achieve energy independence, through a combination of common-sense conservation measures and government investment in developing alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. Additionally, their plan is financed by taxes on polluters, so taxpayers won't foot the bill, as they would end up doing in McCain's dubious scheme to build more nukes.

[Mothra]

I'm really scared of McCain and what he might do.

[Who cares about William Ayers when the Dow is cratering?]

It's stupid for McCain and Palin to be saying "Drill, Baby, Drill!" when the burning of carbon-based fuels is what got us into this global warming mess in the first place. We need to cut back our use of oil, not find more of it to burn.

[rahul sharma]

I'M REALLY SCARED OF McCAIN AND WHAT HE MIGHT DO.

[rahul sharma]

I'M REALLY SCARED OF McCAIN AND WHAT HE MIGHT DO.

[Sean Janoe]

Hey you wanna speak of respected scientific bodies name one person. show me one SCIENTIFIC journal no philosophical B/S. show me mathematics and ill believe you.

WE ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING LET ALONE A CAUSE OF ANY NATURAL PHENOMENON. we are so small and insignificant in this vast universe. Mankind should be considered ignorant for ever believing they could be a cause in a natural phenomenon.

and you say nuclear energy is bad. do you exactly know what "nuclear" or "radiation" even mean?. did you know that the watch you wear uses nuclear energy through quartz technology.

And mccain needs to drill all the oil he can to gain time and we need all the time we can use in our quest for new technology.

OH an btw I doubt we will reach this green technology any faster with Obama

Who is goin to tax college students, and cut at the MINIMUM 30% of nasa's funding and tax 20% to 30% of all funding from businesses that make over 250k which is every laboratory in the US.

But I guess we could always put our "HOPE IN A CHANGE!" on extremely under-funded laboratories and financially neglected college students

and all of this will occur thanks to the poor complaining failure embarrassment to society democrat in which thier only goal in life is greed.

lesson: AMERICA SHOULD QUIT THINKING WITH THIER HEARTS AND START THINKING WITH THIER BRAINS.

goodday

[Ray Mercer]

Sean Jarboe wrote: Hey you wanna speak of respected scientific bodies name one person. show me one SCIENTIFIC journal no philosophical B/S. show me mathematics and ill believe you.

WE ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING LET ALONE A CAUSE OF ANY NATURAL PHENOMENON.
-------------------

So you want "respected scientific bodies" who have concluded that human activity is a major factor in climate change? That's easy enough. Here's a 2004 article from Science, the journal of the highly respected American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

[free dental care]

i like this part of the post:"The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes." is very good... is very important this info thanks!!

[investment costa rica]

Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation

[yiwu]

Your article is very good,I like it very much,I think someday when the oil is burned by automobiles, we have to use the nuclear.

[yiwu agent]

I really appreciate the effort you have given to this post. I am looking forward for your next post. I found this informative and interesting blog. I just hope you could make another post related to this. This is definitely worth reading.

[yiwu belts]

The National Association of Attorneys General is asking cigarette maker RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. to stop a promotional gifts campaign for Camel cigarettes that the group says appeals to young people.