McCain urges free-market principles to reduce global warming

[Terri]

By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press
May 12, 2008

PHOENIX (AP) -- 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.''

More

[elmerck1]

I don't know who John is trying to fool, but scientists have proved the earth's temperture has cooled in the last few years. Now he is talking Kyoto treaty. We can kiss this election goodby, and live with a black man for Pres. for the next 4 years, until we can find a truly conservative republican to replace him. He is changing like the weather every day. I don't know who is advising him on all this junk he is spewing out, but he needs to change oil and start over.

[Terri]

Elmer, are you objecting to Obama because he's a black man?

I would gladly elect a black man if he was also a conservative. What I won't do is cast my vote for a socialist/communist even if he's orange with purple polkadots.

I don't care what color someone's skin is but I do care what their core beliefs are.

The Democrats have poisoned this entire election cycle with their race based, gender based hate.

Give me a Black Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir and let's elect her!

[84rules]

Right solutions, but wrong reasons.

But, if you expand the context his comments to include all forms of pollution that industrialization contibuted to instead of just the emission of so-called "greenhouse gases," then Sen. McCain is correct. There was a terrible cost to our environment since 1900 (and even before) but Global Warming was not among them.

Instead, there were problems like Sulphur-Dioxide emissions that were shown to be poisoning the air. Chemical waste from slags and other manufacturing/processing by-products were dumped into steams and rivers. Industrial waste sites like Love Canal became environmental catastrophes. This had been going on for decades before efforts to clean them up began in the 1970's.

Here in the Washington D.C. area, we are reminded of the huge impact industialization had every time we look at the Potomac River. Coal mine drainage into the North branch of the Potomac lowered the pH of the water to about 2.0 and as this hyper-acidic water flowed downstream, it killed every living thing in the river. In order to reverse the effect, a dam had to be built across the Potomac and the water treated in the reservoir before being allowed to flow downstream.

Senator McCain may not have the right reasons, but I think he is on the right track (Free Market principles) to effective solutions.

[Terri]

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.

When I read that statement I had an idea of sorts.

Now, I'm not saying that McCain is smart enough to do this or that he is doing it, but it seems to me that we could use global warming hysteria to help us get off so much dependence on mid-east oil.

It probably wouldn't help open ANWR or help drilling in the US, both of which we need to do, but we should be able to use it to build nuclear power plants, etc.

[ONTIME]

I question anyone who throws up global warming as if it were a factual item for argumentive use. NASA has made this argument for this sham even more ridiculous by citing by their own observations and technical data, if there was warming, it ended ten years ago.

In the last few weeks the globe has suffered, tornado's, cyclones, earthquakes and vocanic erruptions, drought and extreme cold, lord knows what else there might be but we humans are still here and I seriously doubt we caused or could have prevented any of these conditions, no matter how smart we think we are.

So John Boy, can you meet me for a beer so we can discuss your psychological challenge to the understanding of man's arrogance and political lies?

[Stephen D Griffis]

I can't believe McCain is buying into the global warming scam. Even if we did everything possible to reduce our CO2 emissions, it still wouldn't make a difference to the climate, it would just wreck our economy. Besides, interfering with the climate could have disasterous results. So far, I haven't seen any predictions of the consequences of forcing climate control. We really should be concerned about a possible ice age. Historically, we're due for another one.

Hasn't McCain noticed that pollution in the U.S. had improved dramatically over the past couple of decades?

BTW, it wasn't Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto protocol, it was Clinton, although Al Gore did sign it "symbolically." In fact, Clinton didn't even bother to submit the Kyoto protocols to the Senate, probably because the Senate had already passed a resolution that is was the "sense of the Senate" to reject it anyway.

[Terri]

Stephen, I think Clinton did sign it and Bush pulled us out of Kyoto.

Check this out.

What Is US history with the Kyoto Protocol? : Vice President Al Gore was a main participant in putting the Kyoto Protocol together in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy required by compliance. The Senate also balked at the agreement because it excluded certain developing countries, including India and China, from having to comply with new emissions standards.

Why did President Bush Withdraw US Support? : George Bush made campaign promises in 2000 to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, in 2001, George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency. Bush dismissed Kyoto Protocol as too costly, describing it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket." Lately, the White House has even questioned the validity of the science behind global warming, and claims that millions of jobs will be lost if the US joins in this world pact.

[84rules]

Unless my memory is slipping away from me, I believe the Senate vote against Kyoto was 95-0.

[Luckyme]

I'm trying hard to remember that no matter what happens, McCain won't be quite as bad as either Obama or Clinton.

He will give us better judges if he has enough Republlicans in Congress to get them through. That alone is enough reason to vote for him in my opinion.