The rhetoric and the reality on McCain and the environment

May 12, 2008

When pressed on his differences with George W. Bush, John McCain now relies on a three-prong answer: McCain is more committed to cutting spending than Bush has been, McCain disapproved of the Rumsfeld strategy, and McCain cares more about the environment.

All three struggle under scrutiny. McCain talks about spending, but comes up short when pushed for specifics. He criticizes Rumsfeld years later, but while Rumsfeld was failing, McCain was urging Americans to “stay the course.”

And then there’s environmental policy, which McCain is emphasizing heavily this week as a way of making him appear more moderate, helping him with independents, and distancing himself from the far-right wing of his own party.

One of the presidential candidates is off to the Pacific Northwest today to talk up a big campaign pledge to combat climate change — and it’s a Republican.

John McCain is set to outline his proposal for offsetting global warming in a major address in Portland, Ore., this afternoon. His campaign says he’ll “propose a domestic cap-and-trade system that will mobilize market forces to develop and commercialize alternatives to carbon-based fuels” — a split from the Bush administration, which has largely ignored the topic. […]

Senator McCain also has a new environmental ad now playing in Oregon to coincide with his global warming speech. “One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution; another denies the problem even exists,” an announcer says. “There’s a better way.”

Mr. McCain’s decision to make climate change a key part of his campaign is “evidence of his intention to battle Mr. Obama for independent voters, a group the two men have laid claim to,” write Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of The New York Times.

It all sounds very nice, just so long as you don’t look past the surface.

If we’re judging McCain on a sliding Republican scale, then sure, he’s not quite as reckless and irresponsible on environmental issues than some of his fellow conservatives. He believes global warming is real and he doesn’t believe trees cause pollution. If the soft bigotry of low expectations means anything, McCain looks pretty good in comparison to, say, James Inhofe.

But part of the problem is that McCain’s commitment to sensible environmental policies is a bit like the weather in Chicago: if you don’t like it, wait a few minutes, because it’s bound to change.

McCain has made the environment one of the key elements of his presidential bid. He speaks passionately about the issue of climate change on the campaign trail, and he plans to outline his vision for combating global warming in a major speech today in Portland, Ore.

“I’m proud of my record on the environment,” he said at a news conference Friday at the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City. “As president, I will dedicate myself to addressing the issue of climate change globally.”

But an examination of McCain’s voting record shows an inconsistent approach to the environment: He champions some “green” causes while casting sometimes contradictory votes on others.

The senator from Arizona has been resolute in his quest to impose a federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions, even when it means challenging his own party. But he has also cast votes against tightening fuel-efficiency standards and resisted requiring public utilities to offer a specific amount of electricity from renewable sources. He has worked to protect public lands in his home state, winning a 2001 award from the National Parks Conservation Association for helping give the National Park Service some say over air tours around the Grand Canyon, work that prompts former interior secretary and Arizona governor Bruce Babbitt to call him “a great friend of the canyon.” But he has also pushed to set aside Endangered Species Act protections when they conflict with other priorities, such as the construction of a University of Arizona observatory on Mount Graham.

McCain’s lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24%. That’s better than some Republicans, but for those who take the environment seriously, it pales in comparison to the 86% rating that both Clinton and Obama have earned from the LCV.

LCV President Gene Karpinski tells audiences about McCain’s environmental scorecard rating, he said, “jaws drop…. I tell them, ‘He’s not as green as you think he is.'”

Another part of the problem, as Sam Stein explained this morning, is that McCain has a nasty habit of promoting environmental policies he’s already voted against.

Over the past few years, Sen. John McCain has earned maverick stripes by taking a stance on climate change that few of his Republican colleagues would dare to toe. It is a political unorthodoxy that has had its benefits on the presidential campaign trail as well. Today, for instance, the Senator is slated to appear before a wind power plant to tout the merits of such environmentally friendly technologies.

“Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better,” read McCain’s prepared remarks. “And one day they will change our economy forever.”

But back in 2005, when McCain had the chance to vote for a bill that would have included the largest expansion of financial incentives to produce clean wind energy, he didn’t.

Stein added, “[O]n Monday, McCain will be in the political awkward situation of appearing before a company that directly benefited from the legislation he once lambasted.”

It’s a dynamic McCain seems to find himself in the middle of more and more all the time.

McCain also took some pot shots at Shrub over Katrina. But of course they were hanging out together eating cake while Brownie was doing a heck of a job.

McCain has also sheephishly muttered that Rumfeld and Shrub were both to blame over Irak.

So he is trying to distance himself a little bit at a time from the Bush administration. The environment is another area where he can try to do it.

But if we are judging McCain on a sliding Republican scale, one of those kids from “are you smarter than a 5th grader” could also come up with better environmental policies than Shrub too.

  • “One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution; another denies the problem even exists,” an announcer says. “There’s a better way.”

    That’s one way to position yourself as a middle-of-the-road guy: define the debate in terms of its ludicrous extremes.

  • This is where McPhony earns his name; the concept of “cap-n-trade” does nothing to curb pollution—all it does it to take a big chunk of the responsibility off the people who made the mess, and force it onto the people who had nothing to do with the pollution in the first place.

    Let’s call it for what it is—convicting the innocent for the crimes of the guilty….

  • Well, the strategery employed has worked thus far: advocate both positions of a debate and hope the masses only see you promoting their viewpoints on network news. Failing that, when addressing said masses who may have accidentally seen the wrong broadcast, excitedly point to the time and place when you were championing their cause and then attack/smear your opponent/enemy for skewering your words and taking them out of context.

  • I’d remind the voters that in the 2000 election the Republicans assured us that their candidate cared about the environment and would regulate carbon emissions, and as soon as Bush got into office he told the American people “fuck you” on global warming.

    What percentage of us think the Republicans care more about the environment than about corporate profits? Is it even 10%?

    Say what you want, McCain. Nobody will believe you.

  • To be fair, most politicians flip-flop on issues from then and now. And maybe back then he didn’t think that alternative technology was the way to go, but he’s now realized his mistake and is trying to undo the damage.

  • More McSame. Reminds me of Bush running against Gore in 2000. He also sold himself as pro-environment but said his opponent went too far. Bush always claims to be pro-environment, but whether we’re talking about his (pro-loggging) Healthy Forest Initiative or his newfound claims to take manmade global warming seriously (without actually doing much of anything about it), there’s generally some Orwellian angle to it.

  • I see Racer X had the same thought I did. I do think that’s an effective and correct angle to take. It will be a challenge to mix with Obama’s transpartisan message, but I think that needs to be redirected to really highlight what hacks contemporary Republicans have proven to be.

  • The radio program Living on Earth had a story recently about the renewable energy tax credit, a measure which passed the House but failed in the Senate by one vote. Sen. “Skip Vote Express” McCain, of course, missed the vote (remind me why he gets a salary from the government…). I don’t know what his position is on the renewable tax credit, but imagine that there is significant support for solar energy in the state of Arizona. (The only Democrat to vote against the credit was Sen. Landrieu (D-LA), who was protecting subsidies for the poor, starving oil companies.)

    Apparently the Democratic Senate leadership will be bringing the measure up for a vote again. Perhaps McCain should do his job and cast a vote this time. Even if it is a no vote, at least he’ll go on record as being against renewable energy.

    • Comments are closed.