McCain: Clean energy a 'national security issue'

[Gunny]

From Ed Hornick
CNN

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain took his weeklong environmental tour to Washington state Tuesday, addressing the need for reducing the nation's dependency on foreign oil and sparking investment in environmentally friendly technology.

McCain spoke at an environmental roundtable at Cedar River Watershed Education Center in North Bend, Washington.

Washington is among several potential battleground states in the West -- including California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon -- where voters count the environment as a top issue.

McCain said Tuesday that coming up with new forms of clean energy is "a national security issue when we're dependent on more than $400 billion a year in imported oil from countries that don't like us very much ... some of that money is helping terrorist organizations."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/mccain.environment/index.html

 

[Dogger]

McCain is trying to distance himself from his own record:

From the Washington Post: Environmental Stances Are Balancing Act For McCain

As a result, McCain scores significantly lower than his Democratic rivals for the presidency, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), in interest groups' studies of his environmental voting record. McCain's lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24 percent, compared with 86 for Obama and 86 for Clinton; Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund's conservation report card gave him 38 percent in the 108th Congress and 40 in the 109th. (McCain has missed every major environmental vote this Congress, giving him a zero rating.)

When 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.' "

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I don't know what people expect to accomplish by making petroleum fuels obsolete. If the arab nations have no oil to sell, then their economies would collapse, probably leading to radical islamist revolutions.

Anyway, if we are worried about money getting into the hands of terrorists, then why are we giving money to Libya's Khadaffi, or the Saudis? Why are we supporting shady Marxist radicals in Iran, just because they oppose the existing regime? Haven't we learned about the folly of blowback by now?

 

[Dogger]

I don't know what people expect to accomplish by making petroleum fuels obsolete. If the arab nations have no oil to sell, then their economies would collapse, probably leading to radical islamist revolutions.

Anyway, if we are worried about money getting into the hands of terrorists, then why are we giving money to Libya's Khadaffi, or the Saudis? Why are we supporting shady Marxist radicals in Iran, just because they oppose the existing regime? Haven't we learned about the folly of blowback by now?

I don't expect they will become obsolete even if we dramatically reduce our dependence. They will become obsolete as a fuel source if we consume it all, and their economies will collapse then.

Our current dependence and consumption has not quelled the Islamist movement. It has given oil-rich governments additional resources to suppress it, but that only delays the inevitable and makes the eventual revolutions even worse.

The Islamist movement is driven in large part by concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a few, and the poverty suffered by so many others. If the wealthy sheiks put more into infrastructure and building an economy not dependent exclusively upon oil, they could alleviate much poverty and much fuel for the Islamist movement.

But their selfishness and greed controls, so eventually they will be driven out or killed. Only then will we see the real blowback that comes from supporting short-term stability by repression rather than seeking the long-term stability that comes from development.

 

[jillian]

I don't expect they will become obsolete even if we dramatically reduce our dependence. They will become obsolete as a fuel source if we consume it all, and their economies will collapse then.

Our current dependence and consumption has not quelled the Islamist movement. It has given oil-rich governments additional resources to suppress it, but that only delays the inevitable and makes the eventual revolutions even worse.

The Islamist movement is driven in large part by concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a few, and the poverty suffered by so many others. If the wealthy sheiks put more into infrastructure and building an economy not dependent exclusively upon oil, they could alleviate much poverty and much fuel for the Islamist movement.

But their selfishness and greed controls, so eventually they will be driven out or killed. Only then will we see the real blowback that comes from supporting short-term stability by repression rather than seeking the long-term stability that comes from development.

I agree with all of that. But would just add that oil independence is also a security interest because the oil rich sheiks fund the terrorists organizations and allow them free reign precisely to take the focus off of their own corrupt regimes and place it on the U.S. and Israel.

 

[Ravi]

I remember Bush saying the same thing. Pandering for votes, IMO.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've been saying this for years. The more we rely on foreign oil the less safe we are.

There is an easy solution but of course politicians are too stupid to see it.

here it is

allow a 100% tax credit (not deduction) for ALL people and businesses who install any type of solar, wind or geothermal system. then give tax breaks to new start ups specializing in these technologies.

this along with building codes that require all new construction to use solar hot water and passive solar heating designs would be monumental in their success. just think a slew of new businesses means a slew of new jobs and our oil dependence would be cut in half.

that means not only would we be physically safer but our economy would be insulated from oil prices and we would see stability and growth like never before in our history.

 

[busara]

I've been saying this for years. The more we rely on foreign oil the less safe we are.

There is an easy solution but of course politicians are too stupid to see it.

here it is

allow a 100% tax credit (not deduction) for ALL people and businesses who install any type of solar, wind or geothermal system. then give tax breaks to new start ups specializing in these technologies.

this along with building codes that require all new construction to use solar hot water and passive solar heating designs would be monumental in their success. just think a slew of new businesses means a slew of new jobs and our oil dependence would be cut in half.

that means not only would we be physically safer but our economy would be insulated from oil prices and we would see stability and growth like never before in our history.

that sounds like a reasonable plan, but would dependence really be cut in half or was that just an estimated number? the US also needs to move away from corn as a source of biofuel and turn to higher yield crops like sugar, sweet sorgum, or petrolalgae, which looks very promising. all the politicians want to talk about decreasing oil dependence, but none will actually take the hard steps to doing it

 

[Gunny]

McCain is trying to distance himself from his own record:

I find your idea kind of funny since it was reported on the news he's pissed of the conservative base for embracing man-made global warming.

Personally, I think the senile old coot forgot what party he was in and saw on the news the Dem Primary was still going and went out stumping to be the Dem nominee.

 

[SingingMongoose]

I find your idea kind of funny since it was reported on the news he's pissed of the conservative base for embracing man-made global warming.

Wait, I'm confused. I thought conservatives were all about embracing man-made global warming?

...oh, you meant "embrace" as in "accept the existence of." Mybad.

 

[Dogger]

I find your idea kind of funny since it was reported on the news he's pissed of the conservative base for embracing man-made global warming.

Personally, I think the senile old coot forgot what party he was in and saw on the news the Dem Primary was still going and went out stumping to be the Dem nominee.

McCain has a bad record on the environment. His stance on climate change brings up a low number, but it doesn't erase it.

And that is all it takes to anger the nut-wing crazy people; you know, the ones who think Jim Inhofe is sane.

 

[Gunny]

McCain has a bad record on the environment. His stance on climate change brings up a low number, but it doesn't erase it.

And that is all it takes to anger the nut-wing crazy people; you know, the ones who think Jim Inhofe is sane.

Beleive it or not, no, I don't know. I don't who this Jim Inhofe is. I don't keep up with right wingnuts. The only reason I know who some of the left wingnuts are is because they get a lot of media attention.

Most Republicans and I guess conservatives come up lame on the environment in general, not just global warming.

 

[Dogger]

McCain's Climate Change Policy speech on Monday contained two interesting passages:

And you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.
. . .

I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach -- an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

It seems to me that McCain just said that polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have better sense than George W. Bush. Finally, something McCain and I can agree upon.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't expect they will become obsolete even if we dramatically reduce our dependence. They will become obsolete as a fuel source if we consume it all, and their economies will collapse then.

Our current dependence and consumption has not quelled the Islamist movement. It has given oil-rich governments additional resources to suppress it, but that only delays the inevitable and makes the eventual revolutions even worse.

The Islamist movement is driven in large part by concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a few, and the poverty suffered by so many others. If the wealthy sheiks put more into infrastructure and building an economy not dependent exclusively upon oil, they could alleviate much poverty and much fuel for the Islamist movement.

But their selfishness and greed controls, so eventually they will be driven out or killed. Only then will we see the real blowback that comes from supporting short-term stability by repression rather than seeking the long-term stability that comes from development.

I've maintained the sentiments that you've expressed in the last two paragraphs for years. Good points, imo. The sheiks, kings, princes propogate this in order to keep the hate on us which, in turn, diminishes the vast shortcomings of the kingdoms in the ME.