McCain takes on Global Warming

[ConcordCowboy]

Because you can NEVER have too many Global Warming Threads and I agree with him...well on the bolded part anyway.


McCain takes on global warming

Urges free-market principles to reduce greenhouse emissions





PHOENIX - Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday at a Portland, Ore., wind turbine manufacturer, the presidential contender says expanded nuclear power must be considered to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also sets a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990.

"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction — toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain.

"Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world."

The Arizona senator promised to challenge China and India, two economic rivals who are fueling their challenge to U.S. market supremacy with heavily polluting fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

"For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China's skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding and its own glaciers melting," said McCain.

He also took a swipe at President Bush, who balked at the beginning of its term at signing the Kyoto global warming protocols. McCain said he would return to the negotiating table.

"I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach — an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation," he said.

The language highlighted the political stakes for McCain, his party's presumed nominee. His visit to Oregon came just days after the two leading Democratic contenders, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, campaigned in the state.

Oregon is among the expected general election battlegrounds, and its Columbia and Hood rivers are playgrounds for many outdoorsmen and environmentalists.

Global warming also stands with abortion rights and an array of social causes as important issues to the evangelicals and Christian conservatives whom McCain hopes will bolster his political base this fall.

McCain has long expressed a belief in global warming, arguing that even if he is wrong, acting as if the planet's temperature were increasing would only benefit the environment if scientists subsequently proved he was mistaken.

McCain traveled to the Pacific Northwest from Arizona, where he and his family spent Mother's Day.

In his speech, he highlighted his personal experiences viewing evidence of glacial recession. He also cited evidence of a shift in animal migration patterns.

"You would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well," he said.

McCain's major solution is to implement a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions, like a similar program in the Clean Air Act that was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that triggered acid rain.

Industries would be given emission targets, and those coming in under their limit could sell their surplus polluting capacity to companies unable to meet their target.

McCain wants the country to return to 2005 emission levels by 2012; 1990 levels by 2020; and to a level sixty percent below that by 2050.

"As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt — and that is good economic policy."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24576479/

[iceberg]

well i guess that should end debate.

now, would you say something like this because all the whiners and complainers need a verbal pacifier, or does he really believe it?

in the end being more environmentally conscious is a good thing. but let's not think that we're the sole reason the world is a bit warmer now. there are COUNTLESS reasons our atmosphere has changed over a few billion years and to think we're the sole cause of change now is just a self-serving beating post for the radicals on the left with nothing else to whine about today in order to say how evil mankind is.

[Danny White]

McCain's "solution" of cap-and-trade is a disaster.

The guy is making it more and more difficult for me to think about voting for him.

[Doomsday101]

I can't say I'm as sure as McCain is on this issue but I have no problem with any of the candidates trying to lower emissions and putting in place ideals to help lower our pollution levels but to do so without devastating business or causing many to lose their jobs.

I would also say if we are going to get involved with a worldwide treaty such as the Kyoto treaty then it must be fair across the board and currently the Kyoto treaty is not.

[ConcordCowboy]

Originally Posted by Danny White

McCain's "solution" of cap-and-trade is a disaster.

The guy is making it more and more difficult for me to think about voting for him.

And this is bad how?

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

I can't say I'm as sure as McCain is on this issue but I have no problem with any of the candidates trying to lower emissions and putting in place ideals to help lower our pollution levels but to do so without devastating business or causing many to lose their jobs.

I would also say if we are going to get involved with a worldwide treaty such as the Kyoto treaty then it must be fair across the board and currently the Kyoto treaty is not.

I am not at all sold on Global Warming, but I do want to see more concentrated efforts to achieve better use of energy and natural resources.

I personally like a lot of the Green Movement. I especially like it in the construction industry where I work. Cleaner air and water is not a bad thing. I do admit I don't want it to hurt industry.

[big dog cowboy]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

"For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China's skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding and its own glaciers melting," said McCain.

The sacrifice needs to be equal across the board for all countries in helping confront these issues.

Any country allowed to do as they please will only make it harder on the rest.

I have a hard time believing that some companies in other countries are going to bend over backwards to meet our standards.

[Danny White]

S. 2191 is the Senate bill that McCain has championed that provides the framework for his cap-and-trade plan.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm

The actual cost of S. 2191 is difficult to estimate--as America has never had to deal with such severe energy constraints--but would likely be very high.

A Regressive Tax

By limiting the supply of fossil fuels, S. 2191 would raise the cost of energy. For consumers, cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.[8]

Lost Jobs

[View Full Quote]The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 million to 2.3 million by 2015.[9] Some of these jobs will be lost for good, due to the impact of higher energy costs on economic activity. Others, chiefly in the manufacturing sector, will be sent overseas. In the very likely event that S. 2191 significantly raises domestic manufacturing costs and that developing nations refuse to impose similar restrictions, the American economy could experience a substantial outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to those nations with lower energy costs.

Little Environmental Gain

While the costs of aggressive cap and trade proposals are substantial, the environmental benefits are suspect. This is true even if one fully accepts the claim of man-made global warming. The most ambitious measure to date is the Kyoto Protocol, but even if the U.S. were a party to this treaty and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance (most are unlikely to meet their targets), the treaty would reduce the Earth's future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050--an amount too small even to verify.[10] S. 2191 would at best do only a little more.

Indeed, a number of economists, including many who are far from global warming skeptics, warn of overly aggressive cap and trade measures imposing costs exceeding the benefits.[11] In other words, the costs of implementing such measures would be higher than the value of the global warming damage that they would prevent.

The Slippery Slope

It is a near certainty that the first climate bill enacted will not be the last one. In fact, most major environmental organizations have already criticized S. 2191 and other pending global warming bills as inadequate, or as at best "a good first step." The economic impacts of S. 2191, though substantial in their own right, could be a mere down payment toward costlier subsequent measures.

Conclusion

Cap and trade bills are nothing short of a government re-engineering of the American economy. And S. 2191, with its aggressive targets to reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, would put the nation on a path of serious economic harm not justified by any benefits.

[poke]

[quote=ConcordCowboy;2079451]Because you can NEVER have too many Global Warming Threads and I agree with him...well on the bolded part anyway.


McCain takes on global warming

Urges free-market principles to reduce greenhouse emissions





PHOENIX - Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.....

Mr. McCain apparently doesnt read the Zone because quiet a few posters
here argue that it is very "deniable"

[BrAinPaiNt]

People can argue till their face turns blue like violet in Willy Wonka. But it is real. Almost everyone, including the current (and in McCain's case) future admin. And when the republican president admits it is real...that should tell you something. Cause that means he has gone out of his way to deny it until finally it just can not be ignored any longer.

Problems is the degree of it, how much at fault are we, what are we to do about it and how serious is it.

Could be something that is very serious, could just be as dangerous as a cat fart (or cow lol), we could be a major or minor cause of it, do we need to spend untold fortunes to fix it or not....those IMO are the things that should be argued about and most times are.

Problem I seem to have with these global warming threads is...it would seem are so partisian on many cases that they just take whatever a specific party line tells them to take. Like they are reading it out of Al Gore's playbook or a Right spin machines play book.

[iceberg]

[quote=poke;2079562]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

Because you can NEVER have too many Global Warming Threads and I agree with him...well on the bolded part anyway.


McCain takes on global warming

Urges free-market principles to reduce greenhouse emissions





PHOENIX - Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.....

[View Full Quote]Mr. McCain apparently doesnt read the Zone because quiet a few posters
here argue that it is very "deniable"

and still will. my question to all those now using mccain to prop up their thought, did you give a damn about what he said till this or is this just something hot and current you can go LOOK! I WAS RIGHT!!! too?

bush also was it was undeniable iraq had wmd.

also, while i've not read the article, does he say mankind is the sole/major cause of it? this is where people tend to differ. most will agree it's getting warmer, not all agree on why.

[BrAinPaiNt]

[quote=poke;2079562]

Originally Posted by ConcordCowboy

Because you can NEVER have too many Global Warming Threads and I agree with him...well on the bolded part anyway.


McCain takes on global warming

Urges free-market principles to reduce greenhouse emissions





PHOENIX - Republican John McCain, reaching out to both independents and green-minded social conservatives, argues that global warming is undeniable and the country must take steps to bring it under control while adhering to free-market principles.....

[View Full Quote] Mr. McCain apparently doesnt read the Zone because quiet a few posters
here argue that it is very "deniable"

Deniability of Denial?

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

People can argue till their face turns blue like violet in Willy Wonka. But it is real. Almost everyone, including the current (and in McCain's case) future admin. And when the republican president admits it is real...that should tell you something. Cause that means he has gone out of his way to deny it until finally it just can not be ignored any longer.

Problems is the degree of it, how much at fault are we, what are we to do about it and how serious is it.

Could be something that is very serious, could just be as dangerous as a cat fart (or cow lol), we could be a major or minor cause of it, do we need to spend untold fortunes to fix it or not....those IMO are the things that should be argued about and most times are.

[View Full Quote]Problem I seem to have with these global warming threads is...it would seem are so partisian on many cases that they just take whatever a specific party line tells them to take. Like they are reading it out of Al Gore's playbook or a Right spin machines play book.

i've yet to see anyone say "mankind didn't do it, we're not to blame, nothing needs to be done..."

from the anti GW crowd i usually see "can't say for sure it's mankind but regardless we do need to do more for our environment".

and the fanatical left won't have it cause we need to blame mankind all the time.

gw is real. show me anyone who's ever aruged about it to say it's not. the ones who wind up arguing are the ones whos say it could be natural for the earth to do this. i usually see that crowd then say "but it's a good idea to pay attention to the environment regardless.

so mccain says it's real. why? it is. but that doesn't mean mankind is the sole / root cause of it. that's where the arguing usually takes place. then in the last month or so sunspot activity is predicting a cooling trend.

if and when that does become a reality, will the knee jerking stop or will we all need to buy parkas and fight that evil cooling?

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

Problem I seem to have with these global warming threads is...it would seem are so partisian on many cases that they just take whatever a specific party line tells them to take. Like they are reading it out of Al Gore's playbook or a Right spin machines play book.

Interestingly one of the huge problems I have with these threads is that whenever posters point to the dominant scientific opinion on the topic, it immediately brings the claims of toting the "Al Gore" line. When folks stop confusing the Al Gore playbook with say, the American Association for the Advancement of Science playbook, we'll be able to have a much more intelligent conversation on the topic.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by abersonc

Interestingly one of the huge problems I have with these threads is that whenever posters point to the dominant scientific opinion on the topic, it immediately brings the claims of toting the "Al Gore" line. When folks stop confusing the Al Gore playbook with say, the American Association for the Advancement of Science playbook, we'll be able to have a much more intelligent conversation on the topic.

can you give me a real world example of those two sides so i can better understand your meaning? just don't want to assume where you're coming from.