GovWatch: 2003: Ethanol doesn't increase energy independence
Top McCain Flip Flops: #5. Ethanol:
In 2003, McCain said that ethanol "does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." Campaigning in Iowa in
August 2006, he described ethanol as a "vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse reduction effects." Yesterday, in Massachusetts, he reverted to his anti-ethanol position.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: "Top Ten Flip-Flops"
Feb 5, 2008
End reliance on petro-dictators with market-based reform
Market-Based Energy Reform: National Strategy For Energy Security: John McCain will deliver a national energy strategy that declares independence from the risk bred by our reliance on oil imported from
petro-dictators the vulnerability to the troubled politics of their lands.
John McCain is a proven conservative, and his strategy will not rely on subsidies, rifle-shot tax breaks, line-items for lobbyists, or big-government debacles.
It will promote the diversification and conservation of our energy sources and substantially reduce the impact of our energy consumption on the planet.
It will rely on the genius and technological prowess of American industry and science. Government must set achievable goals, but the markets should be free to produce the means.
Source: Campaign plan: "Bold Solutions for Economic Prosperity"
Feb 3, 2008
Be more active in addressing the issue of climate change
Suppose we do nothing, & we don't eliminate this $400 billion dependence we have on foreign oil. Some of that money goes to terrorist organizations & also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Then what kind of a world have we given our children? We
Westerners care very much about our environment and we want to act. I have disagreed with the Bush administration in not being more active in addressing the issue of climate change, whether it be through cap-and-trade, through tax incentives for R&D for
green technologies and many other measures that need to be taken. We are feeling here in California pollution from China. It is a global issue, and we have to address it globally. I would not agree to any global agreement without India & China being part
of it. I want to assure you that we have an obligation to try to stem these greenhouse gas emissions. One of the ways is through the use of nuclear power. The French generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. We have to address this issue.
I am in favor of cap-and-trade. Lieberman and I have proposed, and we did the same thing with acid rain. They're doing it in Europe now, although not very well. You can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions; you earn a credit. Somebody else is going to
increase theirs; you can sell it to them. Meanwhile we have a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We need a global agreement, but it has to include India and China. We need to go back to nuclear power. We cannot be dependent on
$400 billion a year paying for foreign oil. There's a nexus here. But climate change is real. It can affect states like Florida dramatically because it has to do with violent weather changes. But I am confident American technology and the embrace of
green technologies can reduce these greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose that we are wrong & there's no such thing as climate change and we hand our kids a cleaner world. But suppose we are right & do nothing. That's a challenge for America. We can meet it.
FactCheck: Oil independence will take 25 years, not 5 years
McCain announced a lofty, and, according to experts on the subject, improbable goal of ending foreign oil imports in five years, saying: "We have got to achieve energy independence, oil independence in this nation. I will make it a Manhattan Project, and
we will in five years become oil independent."
We can't predict the future, so perhaps McCain can make this happen. But experts have serious doubts. Says one expert, "You can't institute technological change that quickly. It takes 15 years now to turn
over the car fleet," citing a report commissioned by the secretary of energy that found the US could realistically reduce its reliance on oil imports by a third by 2030.
Another study, partly funded by the Pentagon and published in
2004, said it would take until 2040 for the nation to be free of all oil imports, by primarily using new technologies and competition.
About 66% of the oil used in the US in 2006 came from foreign imports, which amounted to 13.7 million barrels a day.
Suppose that climate change is not real, and we do adopt green technologies, which our economy and technology are capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world. But suppose that climate change is real and we've done nothing. What kind
of a planet are we going to pass on to the next generation? It's real. We've got to address it with technology, with cap-and- trade, with capitalist and free enterprise motivation. We can pass on to our children and grandchildren a cleaner, better world.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate
Dec 12, 2007
Climate change is real; nuclear power is solution
[We need to] stop the contamination of our atmosphere. Climate change is real & is taking place. We have now a confluence of two national security requirements. One is to address the issue of climate change, and nuclear power is a very big part of that.
And it's also a requirement to not allow Chavez in Venezuela, Putin in Russia and the president of Iran to dictate world events and use oil as a weapon which would probably further terrorism and endanger this nation's national security.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan
Oct 9, 2007
Public pressure on oil industry to invest in alternatives
Q: Should the oil industry be required to use some of their profits to help solve our energy problems?
A: I would hope that they would use those profits to further the cause of alternate energy, nuclear power, a lot of other ways that we have to employ
in order to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
Q: Do you support drilling/exploration off the coasts of Florida and California? A: I wouldn't drill off the coast of Florida unless the people of Florida wanted to.
And I wouldn't drill off the coast of California unless the people of California wanted to, and I wouldn't drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people in Arizona wanted to.
Q: But you wouldn't require the oil industry to use its profits
to help pursue alternative energy?
A: I would not require them to. But I think that public pressure and a lot of other things, including a national security requirement that we reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
FactCheck: nuclear plants do emit no GHGs, but do have waste
Sen. John McCain would have us believe that nuclear power is good for the environment because nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases. McCain said, "Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green--does not emit greenhouse gases."
McCain is
correct to say that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases; in that respect, it is far more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel power plants. McCain neglects to mention, however, that nuclear power poses a different set of environmental
worries. High-level nuclear waste--the sort produced as a byproduct of nuclear power generation--is potentially quite harmful. Some of the isotopes in spent nuclear fuel have half-lives as long as 24,000 years. At present, high-level nuclear waste is
mostly stored in pools at nuclear power plants, a temporary solution. Fights have raged for years about the location of a permanent nuclear waste repository, but the NRC plans to open one in 2017 under Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Q: Do you have a problem with Big Oil companies making these huge profits?
A: Sure, I think we all do. And they ought to be reinvesting it. And one of the areas that they ought to be involved in is nuclear power.
Nuclear power is safe, nuclear power is green--& does not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is used on Navy ships which have sailed around the world for 60 years without an accident. And of course we ought to be investing in alternate energy sources.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College
Jun 3, 2007
Ethanol made no sense in `05 but with $60/bbl it makes sense
Q: You said: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." And after you said that, you acknowledged you might pay a political price for that view. You said:
(Videotape of McCain, 6/19/2005): My opposition to ethanol obviously would hurt me. But I've got to do what I think is right. And if it offends a certain political constituency, I regret it, but there's really nothing I can do about it.
A: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.
Q: So you've changed your mind.
A: No, I haven't. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.
2000: Held hearings on mounting evidence of climate change
During hearings McCain held through the Senate Commerce committee, he said there was "mounting evidence" for the existence of global climate change. While he was campaigning in New Hampshire,
McCain had been hounded so much by one environmental group, he agreed to hold hearings on global warming. He was now fulfilling that promise by having six scientists testify, before the Commerce Committee, that the climate was getting warmer.
Global warming was a sensitive issue with Bush---a fact that surely was not lost on McCain when he decided to hold these hearings during the weeks leading up to the national convention. In the past,
Bush had gone out of his way to say he was not sure that conclusive evidence existed to prove global warming was taking place. This was an echo of the Republican majority position.
2000: Criticized Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty
In May, McCain continued his assault on the White House. On May 2, he criticized Bush for killing the Kyoto Treaty at the end of March---the treaty, originally endorsed by Vice President Al Gore in 1997, proposed to curb the global greenhouse effect
by strictly controlling carbon dioxide emissions.
"I wouldn't have done that," McCain said about Bush's decision to remove the United States from the long list of nations worldwide that had agreed to sign it. "I don't agree with everything in the
Kyoto Protocol, but think it is a framework we could have continued to work with. We could have fixed it."
The implication was all too apparent: Bush should have found a way to have the United States sign on to the treaty but didn't.
The back story was implied: Because the treaty was championed by environmentalists and opposed by Big Oil, Bush caved in to pressure from the energy industry and came out against the treaty.
Energy 2001: 1st Republican to sign onto reducing GHGS
McCain put in the Congressional Record a colloquy that proposed a plan for the US to reduce greenhouse gases. McCain, who had held hearings on global warming and was convinced it was a problem, was the first Senate Republican to call for such action.
"The current situation demands leadership from the US," he said. The administration, which was in political difficulty over the global-warming issue for having pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, wasn't likely to appreciate McCain's parting gift.
Source: Citizen McCain, by Elizabeth Drew, p.127-128
May 7, 2002
Strength Clean Air & Water Acts; but not Kyoto
McCain supports the following principles regarding environmental issues:
Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, in order to “improve efficiency and effectiveness”.
Require
states to fully compensate citizens when environmental regulations limit uses of privately-owned land, “consistent with Constitutional takings clause.”
Does not support the United Nations (Kyoto Conference) treaty regarding global climate change.
Source: Vote-Smart.org 2000 NPAT
Jan 13, 2000
Supports alternative fuels, emission controls, & CWA
McCain supports the following principles regarding America’s environment and natural resources:
Strengthen the Clean Water Act.
Encourage development of alternative fuels to reduce pollution.
Strengthen emission controls on all gasoline or
diesel powered engines, including cars and trucks.
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR.
To remove the establishment of an oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. The original bill allows for an oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Voteing YES on this amendment would remove that section, hence barring leasing in ANWR.
Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.
To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act in order to adopt an amendment that appropriates federal funds for the LIHEAP program. A 3/5th vote is required to amand a budget bi
Reference: Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program appropriation;
Bill S.AMDT.2033 to HR 2863
; vote number 2005-250
on Oct 5, 2005
Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day. Opponents of the amendment said, "It would be disruptive of jobs if you set a 78 mile per gallon CAFÉ standard for cars, a 185-percent increase; a 60 mile per gallon standard for trucks, light trucks, a 174-percent increase. [The unamended version] is more in keeping with President Kennedy's "man on the Moon" goal. [The amended version] is a "man or woman on Mars" goal, and maybe we will get there one day, but it is unrealistic today."
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Vote to adopt an amendment that would strike a provision in the concurrent resolution that recognizes revenue from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amendment says: "To ensure that legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, other federal lands, and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling receives full consideration and debate in the Senate under regular order, rather than being fast-tracked under reconciliation procedures; to ensure that receipts from such drilling destined for the federal treasury are fairly shared with local jurisdictions; and does not occur unless prohibitions against the export of Alaskan oil are enacted."
Reference: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge anti-drilling Amendment;
Bill S AMDT 168 to S.Con.Res. 18
; vote number 2005-52
on Mar 16, 2005
Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
Vote to pass a bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies, reorganize the electricity system and make available approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would support the use of alternative energy and call for utilities to increase their dependence on renewable fuels.
Reference: Energy Policy Act of 2003;
Bill HR 6
; vote number 2003-317
on Jul 31, 2003
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.
Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress.
Reference:
Bill S.14
; vote number 2003-212
on Jun 10, 2003
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.
Boxer Amdt. No. 272.; To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. S Con Res 23 Budget resolution FY2004: Vote to pass an amendment that would strike (remove) language in the resolution that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. [Voting No favors drilling for oil in ANWR].
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323; To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security. Would allow gas and oil development in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the president certifies to Congress that production in the area is in the nation's security and economic interests (qwhich Prsident Bush would). If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. A yea vote for this bill was one in favor of drilling in the reserve. Three-fifths of the total Senate (60) is required to invoke cloture.
Reference:
Bill S.517
; vote number 2002-71
on Apr 18, 2002
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months.
Levin Amendment No. 2997; To provide alternative provisions to better encourage increased use of alternative fueled and hybrid vehicles. Vote to pass an amendment that would remove the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE) and instead establish a new automobile efficiency standard in 15 months. Congress could veto any CAFE increase and would be allowed to increase the standard if no changes are made with 15 months. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies by restructuring the electricity system and providing for $16 billion in energy-related tax incentives.
Reference:
Bill S.517
; vote number 2002-47
on Mar 13, 2002
Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling.
Vote to preserve language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Framework that assumes $1.2 billion in revenue from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] in Alaska.
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV).
Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the recommital;
Bill S. 1186
; vote number 1999-171
on Jun 16, 1999
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository.
Approval of the interim nuclear waste repository. The repository would be located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, with an integrated management system for storage and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Voting YES would authorize the President with sole and unreviewable discretion to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site.
Status: Bill Passed Y)65; N)34; NV)1
Reference: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997;
Bill S. 104
; vote number 1997-42
on Apr 15, 1997
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline.
Funding a mandated percentage of market share for the use of ethanol in gasoline, to be funded b reducing NASA budget b $39 million..
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995;
Bill H.R. 4624
; vote number 1994-255
on Aug 3, 1994
Sponsored bill for greenhouse gas tradeable allowances.
McCain sponsored establishing greenhouse gas tradeable allowances
OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide for a program of scientific research on abrupt climate change, to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the US by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the US and reduce dependence upon foreign oil, and ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances.
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill is designed to begin a meaningful and shared effort among the emission-producing sectors of our country to address the world's greatest environmental challenge--climate change.
The National Academy of Sciences reported, "temperatures are, in fact, rising." The overwhelming body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is real, that it is happening as we speak.
Terrible things are happening at the poles, which will have global implications. Amplified global warming, rising sea levels,
and potential alterations in ocean circulation patterns are among the global concerns.
The International Climate Change Task Force recommended that "all developed countries introduce mandatory cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions and construct them to allow for future integration into a single global market." That is already being done in Europe as we speak, which is the substance of this legislation.
If we do not move on this issue, our children and grandchildren are going to pay an incredibly heavy price because this crisis is upon us, only we do not see its visible aspects in all of its enormity. We have done relatively nothing besides gather additional data and make reports. That is what the US national policy is today: gather information and make reports. I would argue that is a pretty heavy burden to lay on future generations of Americans.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works; never came to a vote.
Source: Climate Stewardship Act (S.342/H.R.759) 05-S0342 on Feb 10, 2005
Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.
McCain scores 17% by CAF on energy issues
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 CAF scores as follows:
0% - 30%: opposition of energy independence (approx. 206 members)
30% - 70%: mixed record on energy independence (approx. 77 members)
70%-100%: support for energy independence (approx. 183 members)
About the CAF (from their website, www.ourfuture.org):
The Campaign for America's Future (CAF) is a center for ideas and action that works to build an enduring majority for progressive change. The Campaign advances a progressive economic agenda and a vision of the future that works for the many, not simply the few. The Campaign is leading the fight for America's priorities--against privatization of Social Security, for investment in energy independence, good jobs and a sustainable economy, for an ethical and accountable Congress and for high quality public education.
About the CAF report, "Energy Independence: Record vs. Rhetoric":
Energy independence has surfaced as a defining issue in the current elections. Are most candidates and both parties truly committed? To help distinguish the demonstrated level of support for homegrown, clean energy alternatives, we examined the voting records of current U.S. Representatives and Senators on bills vital to promoting those interests. Key pieces of legislation included goals for independence, and subsidies for the development of alternatives compared to subsidies for drilling and digging. We then compared votes on these issues with campaign contributions from major oil interests. The results show strong inverse correlations between political contributions from big oil and votes for energy independence.
Source: CAF "Energy Independence" Report 06n-CAF on Dec 31, 2006
Supports immediate reductions in greenhouse gases.
McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:
The Republican Main Street Partnership supports the goal of immediate, near-term reductions in greenhouse gases, and would move toward this goal by providing strong incentives that have minimal adverse impact on the economy, and to continue to apply our best scientific minds to developing a better understanding of the long-term nature of climate change and the means to cope with it.
Two objectives should be accomplished:
create an "early action crediting system" to provide assurances to companies that actions taken now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will be recognized and credited in the eventual system of emissions reductions standards that will be developed; and
commit the necessary resources to national and international scientific efforts to better understand the cause and effect of global climate change.
With regard to global warming, the Republican Main Street Partnership recognizes that a longer debate over the proper U.S. role in implementing the Kyoto Protocol should and will occur. In so doing, we hope to bolster our scientific understanding of the problem and perhaps, in turn, provide immediate incentives for communities and corporations to act in their own and the nation's best interests in reducing emissions. We are strongly committed to acting on the emerging consensus for progress and constructive change, and maintaining America's ability to lead the world in the critical area of environmental protection.
Source: Republican Main Street Partnership Issue Paper: Environment 98-RMSP2 on Sep 9, 1998
