Presidential politics and climate change

*UPDATE: (6/12) -- an excellent editorial in the Boston Globe covers the way that McCain falls far short on energy and environmental policy*

In the wake-up call issued by the report I mentioned yesterday, it is made clear that serious action must be taken to move America into a post-carbon (read: oil-free) future. Even Bush's own science advisor has broken ranks and admits the facts argue for a serious change in policy. Now that we're down to choosing between Obama and McSame in November, do we have a clear choice between presidential candidates in plans and priorities with respect to climate change? Yes, we do.

First, Democratic candidate Obama has promised serious action in the form of a market-based cap and trade solution to emissions and real investment in a clean energy infrastructure to improve our national security and environment simultaneously. The vicious cycle of empowering Iran and other rogue nations by sending them billions in oil wealth, then concomitantly fighting them and spending billions on national security in the Middle East, is desperately in need of change. Barack will change that broken record.

While John McCain's own website reports that he supports:

1. Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
2. Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
3. Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
4. Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
5. Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.

It turns out, that with a little digging, one can see that McCain has not voted to take any action whatsoever on climate change, often being the only Senator in Congress not to do so:

• On June 21, 2007, the Senate voted on the Baucus amendment to the energy bill, which would have removed some oil company subsidies in order to fund renewable energy. The amendment failed to pass. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.
• On the same day, the Senate held a cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill. The vote succeeded. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.
• On Dec. 7, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat on the energy bill, which had become substantially bolder after being aligned with the House version. The vote failed. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.
• On Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill, which had the Renewable Portfolio Standard stripped out of it but retained a measure that would shift oil company subsidies to renewables. The vote failed -- by one vote, 59-40. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- the only senator not to do so.
• On Feb. 6, 2008, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass a stimulus bill containing a number of green energy incentives. The cloture motion failed, by one vote. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- again, the only senator not to do so.

Of course, Barack was there and voted his principles. This pattern undercuts the supposed "green-ness" of the GOP candidate, whose claims to fame mainly rest on three past laurels:

• He voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has sponsored or cosponsored the occasional, modest environmental protection bill (protecting whales; awarding tax credits for energy efficiency; boosting fuel efficiency). (Note, however, that his lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters is a measly 29 percent.)
• In 2003, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced the first-ever climate bill to the Senate: the Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce U.S. emissions. It was introduced and voted down in 2003 and again in 2005.
• He acknowledges, without hedging, that anthropogenic climate change is real, and speaks eloquently about the need to address it. He has frequently criticized the Bush administration for inaction.

These years-old deviations from standard GOP orthodoxy have been undone by the weakness of his current proposals:

Relative to what's offered by other Senate cap-and-trade bills (and the plans of his Democratic rivals), the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act -- even in its 2007 incarnation -- is weak. Unlike other such bills, McCain's specifically sets aside massive and unnecessary subsidies for the nuclear industry. Its emissions targets are exceeded even by the lowest-common-denominator bill now heading to the Senate floor, the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act.

This is to say nothing of the Sanders-Boxer bill, the strongest extant climate legislation, which now boasts both Clinton and Obama as co-sponsors and includes even more aggressive targets. Beyond that, we have the plans offered by the leading Democratic campaigns, which offer bold targets, 100 percent auctioning of pollution permits, and detailed plans for how to allocate the auction revenue to boost the green economy.

McCain has never updated his position on cap-and-trade legislation, despite the steady advance in public opinion and climate science since he introduced his bill in 2003. He has not discussed, much less matched, the ambitious targets of his Dem rivals. He has not signed onto the Sanders legislation, or even Lieberman's new bill. He has not said whether he'll vote for it, and has hinted ($ub. rqd) that he'll vote Nay unless big buckets of nuclear pork are added.

In short, McCain's take on cap-and-trade legislation is now anachronistic, lagging well behind what's current, what's possible, and what's needed.

Basically, rather than update his position by voting new measures into law, he's avoiding confronting the right wing of his party by skipping every climate change vote. This portends poorly for the future. To summarize, a clear choice must be made by voters in November -- will we continue the same old, same old energy policies, those that send billions to the Middle East and Venezuela, only to turn around and spend billions more trying to fight and contain these countries? Or will we dry up the well that funds terrorist activity by moving towards a post-carbon future? One candidate has already shown courage and candor by opposing the gas tax, the other showed ignorance and political pandering.

You'll decide.