Photo by JTDGarlic

John McCain has straddled the line on environmental issues in his career. He’s been a friend to business, but opposed drilling in ANWR as well.

In recent weeks, however, McCain got the Big Oil bat out, and is swinging for the fence: he announced he would seek a repeal of the offshore-drilling ban, and the President stepped behind it morning after (pun intended)

Throughout all this, McCain’s campaign has maintained policies that sound like they’re hip with the  environmental rhetoric:

	•	Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
	•	Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
	•	Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
	•	Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
	•	Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.

But these points are laden with anti-environment conservative buzzwords.

>Scientifically-Sound

This is the classic model - claiming that policy must be based on “scientifically sound” information lets McCain sound like he has a progressive climate policy, while giving him a perfect excuse when that translates to “More oil,” like offshore drilling.

McCain wouldn’t have added “scientifically-sound” if he wasn’t planning on needing it later.

>Market-Based

McCain’s market-based cap-and-trade system is a farce - he seems to believe that, left to their own devices and shielded by free carbon-emission allowances, big businesses will choose to change. In fact, he wants to GIVE the allowances to big businesses so that they have room in the budget to develop new technologies, instead of paying for the pollution they’re already causing.

The logic is flawed - small businesses stand to make a name through innovation, while the established players have shown that they’d rather guard their bottom line. McCain’s plan places all the burden on small companies and new players, while letting Big Pollution get out of jail free.

Who likes the market-based approach? Ford, Toyota, British Airways, and BP - companies that profit directly from carbon fuels, or who would lose big money cutting back on emissions. Business’ interests are not the environment’s interests, not yet. That should be all you need to know.

>Minimize Costs

That seems sound, right? Good responsible progress. Wrong - this statement is a loaded contingency, a promise that McCain won’t choose progressive climate policy at a cost to US business. The question is “Minimize costs to whom?” Will McCain seek to minimize the cost to big businesses or to the public? Short-term costs or long-term?

Current energy policies have minimized the cost to the fuel and petroleum industries, but passed the buck to the consumer through sky-rocketing energy costs.

Current policies minimized the cost of modern infrastructure and emergency management preparation to the government, and massive tax cuts to the wealthy, but left New Orleans and the Mississippi river basin underwater.

Current policies have minimized the cost to the automobile manufacturers, but left the consumer with inefficient automobiles that further exacerbate gas prices’ effect on the cost of living.

Personally, I’ll take energy policies that promise me long-term sources of inexpensive fuel over a $300 tax rebate anyday.

>Facilitate International Efforts

I don’t know specifics about this part of McCain’s plan, but I do know that the language makes me nervous. What does he want to see from the international community? Many of them are ahead of us already. The US, you’ll remember, is the only industrial nation that rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bottom Line:

All of McCain’s statements about climate change and energy policy sound good on the surface, but each is hinged on these contingencies, each one predicated on a statement that will give him a way out if he or his supporters become uncomfortable with the trend.

You have to ask: if John McCain was serious about stopping climate change, would he need all the extra words? If he was serious about progress, would he be so careful to leave himself a way out?