Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

McCain Is Full of Hot Air on the Environment

By John Nichols, The Nation. Posted May 12, 2008.


McCain is trying to look green but don't believe the rhetoric. His enviro speeches are just campaign trail greenwashing and here's why.
Advertisement

Yikes, it's really true. John McCain is running for president as a tree-hugging liberal.

No, not an all-the-time environmentalist -- rather, as a swing-state-savvy, targeted-message-peddling, hoping-to-pick-up-the-votes-of-lifestyle-liberals- who-want-to-address-climate-change-on-the-cheap murky-shade-of-green Republican.

So, today, in the battleground state of Oregon, where a reverence for the outdoors requires that Republican contenders greenwash their appeals, McCain's campaign will begin airing a new television commercial that essentially says: "Look, I'm not like George Bush and Dick Cheney. I don't live in la-la land when it comes to global warming. I actually believe in something I like to call 'science.'"

The senator -- who broke a little bit with Bush and Cheney on environmental issues, but who never really lined up with the serious Republican environmentalists who were isolated by the administration and burn-the-planet GOP leaders like Tom DeLay -- is reinforcing the message with a major campaign swing through the northwest, where he hopes to put the sometimes swinging states of Oregon and Washington in play by presenting himself as John McCain: Eco-Warrior.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee swept into Portlandon Monday to deliver a major address outlining his plan to "re-establish America's environmental leadership in the world." Here's a hint about how he'll do it: The McCain campaign says the candidates wants to "mobilize market forces."

That may sound good, but as Gene Karpinski, the president of the bipartisan League of Conservation Voters, says, "To his credit, Senator McCain wants to do something serious about global warming, but his proposal falls far short of what the science says we need to do today. He has not substantively improved his plan over the bill he introduced years ago -- legislation that the science now shows is out of date."

Of particular concern is McCain's determination to mobilize the wrong market forces. "[It] is troubling that he continues to support taxpayer subsidies for a mature industry like nuclear which has yet to resolve its waste disposal problem," says Karpinski. "It would be far more cost-effective to invest in renewable energy like the wind energy plant he is visiting today. Better still would be a call for a renewable electricity standard, something he has voted against time and time again."

On Tuesday, McCain will be in Seattle, where his campaign says the candidate will "solicit the views of environmentalists, conservationists and the business community on the most effective strategies for meeting this challenge."

Don't be fooled. The senator's not listening. He's campaigning, as McCain's greenwashing ad confirms.

The script opens with an announcer acknowledging that:

Our environment in peril,

Oil and food prices out of control,

Climate change wreaks havoc with deadly weather.

One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution.

Another denies the problem even exists.

There's a better way.

Then, McCain does his best to deliver the I'm-no-Bush line that is central to his appeal to voters who think of the environment as something more than a place to search for oil:

I believe that climate change is real.

It's not just a greenhouse gas issue.

It's a national security issue.

We have an obligation to future generations to take action and fix it.

I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

Of course, as perhaps befits the oldest-ever serious contender for the presidency, McCain has embraced an outdated dichotomy: the suggestion that the climate-change choice is between "One extreme (that) thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution" and "Another (that) denies the problem even exists."

In fact, there are smart green solutions that are good for responsible businesses, consumers and taxpayers. McCain could learn about them by studying what European conservatives and even a few American Republicans, like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been saying -- and doing -- for years.

But, as McCain's ad establishes, he's not really serious about climate change. What he's serious about is neutralizing the environment as an issue in a presidential campaign season that will see millions of American voters -- including a great many wavering Republicans -- treat climate-change as an exceptionally serious election issue.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: mccain, election08, greenwashing, environment, global warming, climage change

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
John Nichols is somewhat wrong about McCain
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McCain is certainly not a tree hugger, but he has seen for himself
that the glaciers are melting. John McCain would take some
small action. John McCain is not George W. "Burn the World"
Bush, but he would not take enough action. If John McCain had
been elected in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, we would not be
in Iraq and the environmental situation would be a little less bad.
In that sense, he should be allowed to distance himself from Bush.

I am not for John McCain. We need action against global
warming that none of the candidates has ever expressed. McCain
would spend maybe $5 Billion to fight global warming. Hillary
would spend $55 Billion. Obama would spend $60 Billion. $60
Billion is nowhere near enough. Tree hugging is a separate issue
from global warming. The only environmental issue that really
matters right now is global warming [GW]. GW is the only
environmental issue likely to make Homo Sapiens extinct in about
a century. GW is the only environmental issue that is making
thousands of species extinct every year now. John Nichols'
article misses the above distinctions. That makes John Nichols'
article too much a persuasion piece and not sufficiently truthful,
but McCain would clearly not do as much as the Democrats
would. It is a matter of fine degrees that must be stated.

John Nichols does not seem to realize the extreme nature of GW
either. John Nichols fails to distinguish GW from tree hugging.
John Nichols seems to not realize that truly draconian measures
are required immediately to stop GW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Nichols is wrong about nuclear.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is the political problem that has not been solved in the US, not
the engineering problem. France is happily recycling nuclear fuel
for many countries. The difference is that the French are willing
to accept a tiny bit of socialism when necessary. The US
Republicans want to privatize the government. Making a religion
out of any economic theory or the market is a really bad idea.
Capitalism should not be absolutized. Governmental functions
and a few other functions properly belong to the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Materials & Equipment Company NUMEC
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com
/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports
/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
Government agencies investigated missing uranium, NUMEC
By Mary Ann Thomas and Ramesh Santanam
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Sunday, August 25, 2002
Editor's note: This the first of three parts on the history of the
Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. Part II will appear
Monday and Part III will appear Tuesday.

The colorful history of the former Nuclear Materials and
Equipment Corp. is rich with intrigue and mystery and unwinds
like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel.

There are stories of missing uranium, allegations of illegal
shipments to Israel, FBI sleuthing, meetings with possible Israeli
spies, talk of special "encoded" telephones the FBI could not tap,
concern by the CIA, congressional inquiries and interest from the
White House.

The reason for all the cloak-and-dagger actions was an innocuous
acronym - MUF.

MUF stands for "Materials Unaccounted For," and, in the case of
NUMEC, referred to large quantities of weapons-grade
[WRONG: The US uses plutonium for bombs, not uranium. It
was reactor grade.] uranium that went missing from the Apollo
plant in the 1960s.

The unaccounted for uranium piqued the curiosity of the FBI, the
CIA, Congress, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its
successor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the
Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter presidential administrations.

"Each White House took this and treated it like a hot potato," said
Henry Myers, a former aide to the late U.S. Rep. Morris Udall, D-
Ariz., who led a congressional probe into the affair in the late
1970s.

"I suppose there were too many 'maybes' because it happened and
maybe because it was too hard to prove," Myers said.

NUMEC paid almost $930,000 in fines to the AEC for the lost
uranium.

What actually happened to the uranium still isn't known - at least
not to the public. But it certainly caused much speculation.

Diversion theory

The most popular theory, at least among federal investigators: that
then-NUMEC President Zalman M. Shapiro, a staunch supporter
of Israel, secretly diverted special nuclear material (uranium) to
Israel so that nation could have "the bomb."

In a recent interview with the Valley News Dispatch, Shapiro, 82,
refused to talk about the allegations or the numerous federal
investigations of himself and his upstart nuclear fuels company.

But in previous statements to federal officials, Shapiro adamantly
denied he or anyone else at NUMEC gave Israel nuclear material.

"Let me state emphatically that I have never participated in any
theft or diversion of special nuclear material," Shapiro told Udall
and Interior Committee aides in December 1978. "I have no
knowledge or information concerning any such diversion.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any factual basis for the repeated
allegations that 'material unaccounted for' at NUMEC was caused
by an illegal diversion."

The FBI and its director at the time, J. Edgar Hoover, were
suspicious nonetheless.

The diversion theory held by federal investigators prompted:

* Repeated FBI investigations, including wiretaps of Shapiro's
home and work telephones, and the shadowing of Shapiro by
federal agents;

* A Hoover request to the AEC to revoke Shapiro's top-secret
security clearance;

.......article continues...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recycling nuclear fuel
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A
nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting many times as
long as any other battery, eliminating many surgeries to replace
batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost" a
quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/
x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreport
s/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Extreme Capitalism is the problem with McCain on nuclear power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I stated above, nuclear fuel recycling should be done in a
socialist way, in a GOGO plant. There are many GOGO plants in
the US, but many fewer when the Repubs are in power. Most
GOGO plants are related to military things. There are some
corporations that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the federal
government. We won't go into that. The problem with McCain
and nuclear power is that McCain believes religiously in markets,
as all Repubs do. The options left are to hire France to recycle
our nuclear fuel for us or to modify the religion of the Repubs or
to vote for Democrats or for Green Party candidates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just how serious Global Warming is:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Nichols hasn't read "Six Degrees"
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 12, 2008 10:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded from:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

'Six steps to hell' - summary of Six Degrees as published in the Guardian
23 April 07:

1ºC Nebraska ...shortened... These innocuous-looking hills were once desert, part
of an immense system of sand dunes that spread across the Great Plains from
Texas in the south to the Canadian prairies in the north. Six thousand years ago,
when temperatures were about 1C warmer than today in the US, these deserts may
have looked much as the Sahara does today. ....shortened... devastating
agriculture and driving out human inhabitants on a scale far larger than the 1930s
“Dustbowl” exodus.....shortened...

2ºC ....shortened...Two degrees is also enough to cause the eventual complete
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would raise global sea levels by seven
metres. ...shortened...

3ºC Scientists estimate that we have at best 10 years to bring down global carbon
emissions if we are to stabilise world temperatures within two degrees of their
present levels. ....shortened... 3C may be the “tipping point” where global
warming could run out of control, leaving us powerless to intervene as planetary
temperatures soar. The centre of this predicted disaster is the Amazon, where the
tropical rainforest, which today extends over millions of square kilometres, would
burn down in a firestorm of epic proportions. ...shortened... Once the trees have
gone, desert will appear and the carbon released by the forests’ burning will be
joined by still more from the world’s soils. This could boost global temperatures
by a further 1.5ºC – tippping us straight into the four-degree world.
....shortened...

4ºC At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed,
it could happen much earlier. ....shortened... hundreds of billions of tonnes of
carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost – particularly in Siberia – enter the melt
zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense
quantities. ....shortened...

5ºC ....shortened... methane hydrates. This unlikely substance, a sort of ice-like
combination of methane and water that is only stable at low temperatures and high
pressure, may have burst into the atmosphere from the seabed in an immense
“ocean burp”, sparking a surge in global temperatures ....shortened... . Today vast
amounts of these same methane hydrates still sit on subsea continental shelves. As
the oceans warm, they could be released once more in a terrifying echo of that
methane belch of 55 million years ago. In the process, moreover, the seafloor
could slump as the gas is released, sparking massive tsunamis ....shortened...

6ºC ....shortened... end of the Permian period, 251 million years ago. By the end
of this calamity, up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is
the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting
through space. ....shortened... most of the world’s plant cover was removed in a
catastrophic bout of soil erosion. Rocks also show a “fungal spike” as plants and
animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to
turn them stagnant and anoxic. ....shortened...

One scientific paper investigating “kill mechanisms” during the end-Permian
suggests that methane hydrate explosions “could destroy terrestrial life almost
entirely”.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh CRAP!
Posted by: ChipsMaster on May 12, 2008 10:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, are you suggesting I have a choice in believing Gore and Juan over 400 scientists...Both can go pound sand. While it is important we do what we reasonably can, it is NOT a justification for running around screaming the sky is falling.


Search for: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Report Released on December 20, 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Finding truth on the web Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» Subscribe to RealClimate.org Posted by: AsteroidMiner
John Mclier
Posted by: uncleeddie on May 13, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot believe a single word John Mccain says so how can anyone not believe that he can now get on board with the CO2 hoax. It's called a carbon tax and all you idiot tree huggers are going to pay it and won't even ask for a little Vaseline to be able to take it in with all the other taxes and insults these creeps force on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mcCain is full of hot air...
Posted by: blitzmesser on May 13, 2008 11:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is nothing else in him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pretending to know
Posted by: blitzmesser on May 14, 2008 12:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So many of you are pretending to be scientifically qualified to ascertain what is going on with the climate.
Most of you are simply b***sh*****s as you know nothing about it. Yet you are trying to invalidate those who understand the earth' behavior on a different level.
Many of you quote other people's findings and research, which may be valid or invalid. But you don't know that because you did not do any of the work involved to get the findings.

If you are in doubt that the climate is changing because of human activity... reflect upon your own activities. Sleep easy because it is not your fault. whether we have anything to do with it or not. Climate change is a fact,

and denying this fact is to be expected from a stupid leader and stupid followers.

Possibly some of the change is the result of natural evolution of the climate as a result of cosmic influences upon the earth.
But a lot of it has to do with human activities. If you look at your cities and rivers... are they not affected by the amount of pollution, sewage, and rubbish produced and deposited into them daily ????? You want to deny that rivers are no longer clean, the sky no longer clear, the air no longer breathable in many places on earth?
Therefore: is the climate to be exempt from adverse influences ?

We all know our earth is very large...but maybe not so large that it is able to accommodate the indiscriminate pollution activities of a huge population with a giant appetite for self aggrandizement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]