Recognizing Sen. John McCain's hope that environmental issues will siphon independents and some Democrats from his opponent this fall, we can't help but think his stance on limiting greenhouse gas emissions will hurt him with a group much more critical to his election chances: conservative Republicans.
Advertisement
This week McCain talked about global warming and support for a "cap and trade” system, under which industries would have emissions limits or caps, and those that were below the target could sell their extra emissions capacity to companies needing them.
McCain believes greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to climate change and that setting emissions caps will prompt technological innovations and give companies time to adapt.
We're less certain human activity is the major cause of warming, or that behavioral changes, even draconian ones, will have much effect on temperature. Even if McCain and those who agree with him (mostly Democrats) are right, legislation working through Congress could put the U.S. economy at a disadvantage unless two of the world's biggest polluters, China and India, also commit to limiting emissions.
McCain favors a reduction to 2005 emissions levels by 2012, 1990 levels by 2020 and to a level 60 percent below that by 2050. The Democratic presidential candidates would go further, to 80 percent below 1990's level by 2050.
Yet a recent study by the American Council on Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers predicts billions in lost gross domestic product, massive job losses and rising energy prices if emissions caps became mandatory.
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, says a cap and trade system would send U.S. jobs to China, where he says a new coal-fired generating plant is built every three days, having the perverse effect of hurting America while increasing global emissions.
Makes little sense, which is why McCain's global warming position probably will draw a lukewarm response from his political base.
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
Leave a comment.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Just one man-made global warming alarmist please state what the ideal climate should be and what the ideal temperature should be. The rest of us are all ears.
What I don't understand is who the conservative republicans would prefer to McCain? He may not have hardcore Buckley-esque conservative credentials- but he is a lot better than the two alternatives and I have hard time imagining that conservatives would rather not vote and allow Clinton to win than support McCain.
As for the science of climate change, I recommend that you look at the IPCC's latest report (available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/). This is a conservative estimate of the cause and consequences of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. In order to be published in the IPCC report, the science must be vetted by over 1,000 international government-nominated scientists and top policy makers.
As for faith, please recall that the Southern Baptist Convention now recognizes that we have a moral obligation to prevent climate change (March 9, 2008, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/baptist.climate/).
where did you get your research? Scientists have documented records for many years. Hundreds if not thousands of "neutral" scientists have agreed on global warming.Flawed computer models sounds like Fox news, Jim Inhofe,or the big oil co's propaganda. Who wants to gamble science is wrong and why?
Man made global warming is a hoax based on flawed computer models. I used to really believe it was all true until I started doing some research. Global warming is as much a "fact" as the existance of the Boogey Man.
Lanny, this cap and trade proposal will devastate the economy. Lanny, It's a fair guess that you might pay $125 to $200 for a summer month electric bill. With cap and trade requirements your electric bill will go to $800 to $1,000 a month. If you don't believe it then get ready to join the welfare dole if you aren't already on it. I have credible sources in the electric producing industry and these sources are gravely concerned about this cap and trade system. Its costs will be passed on to the consumers. Get ready to pay taxes on the very CO2 you exhale.
No evidence of man made global warming? Darn crazy scientists worldwide are making this stuff up! It is a liberal conspiracy! Sadaam started the warming rumor while positioning all those WMD's and the rumor spread. Get the point?
There is no evidence of man made global warming. But, go ahead and vote in those who believe in the man made global warming premise. After that, prepare to not be able to afford access to energy as we all have it today. Environmentalism has run amock to being irresponsible. The environmental extremists that vehemently push this flawed agenda are indeed anti-humanity. They are a threat. I'm not condoning violence against them, merely use the ballot box to keep these kooks out of public influence.
Hmmm. Let's see. So, what we should do is pollute the hell out of our country, because if we don't, then China will get more jobs? I'm sorry, but our Republican policies that have eroded environmental protections during the Bush administrations haven't kept IBM (300 jobs leaving Tulsa for Argentina reported this week) or other companies from relocating overseas, so why does anyone think a continuation of such policies will keep those jobs here? In addition, do you really think McCain's views are going to keep conservatives from voting for him? He's the only game in town for them. This is all just skewed logic from the Oklahoman editorial writers.
J. Inhofe could not care any less about the environment. He is stuck in the 50's and drowning in cash donations from companies that will do most anything for money.
how ironic. we can't do anything about climate change because it will hurt the "economy?" look at our economy now. peak oil and climate change are already hitting the world and costing us dramatically in dollar, cents and most importantly the earth that sustains us. human beings need the triple bottom line to survive and propser -- people, planet and profits. profit alone is killing not only us but the rest of the planet. for real climate science (rather than bloviating from critics who aren't doing any research just criticizing those that do) check out realclimate.net.
Global warming from 1996-1006 is a historic fact. That it wasn't much is also a fact...that this past winter, present spring have been the coolest in more than a decade is also fact...what role human activity played is not. It is mere conjecture. Another fact is that those crying loudest are making a load of money from their fear-mongering. The most pointed fact is that forcing an across the board cutback in emissions will have as much effect as the push for ethanol on "greenhouse" gases on global temperatures, and an even more devastating impact on the economy. These knee-jerk reactions only do more damage.
Maybe the reason McCain supports doing something about global warming is because he really believes it. Imagine, a politician doing something because he really believes it and not just for political reasons. Even Bush said yesterday global warming is a fact and we're responsible. Who did you say is still not on this bandwagon...not many? Plus there's an old saying, "keep dancing with the ones who brung you" and conservatives did not bring McCain to the dance. Independants and moderates did. Conservatives tried their best to stop his nomination but their views are no longer in the mainstream.
The funny thing is this: Global Climate change (aka Global Warming) isn't a matter of faith. It's scientific fact. So, in regards to "conservative Republicans", why don't you start calling them what they are: "religious conservative Republicans"? There is a big difference between being conservative and being a religious conservative. One understands facts, even when they might be unpopular facts. I just don't understand how so many people who've never even had a college level science course can dismiss the research over the overwhelming (98%) of the scientific community on this issue. Maybe the newspaper should start reporting more FACTS?
14
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
As for the science of climate change, I recommend that you look at the IPCC's latest report (available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/). This is a conservative estimate of the cause and consequences of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. In order to be published in the IPCC report, the science must be vetted by over 1,000 international government-nominated scientists and top policy makers.
As for faith, please recall that the Southern Baptist Convention now recognizes that we have a moral obligation to prevent climate change (March 9, 2008, available at: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/10/baptist.climate/).