McCain on The Lexington Project

Week 5, Item 8
By, Stacy Jelke

In class we spoke briefly on The Lexington Project and McCain's support of it. I decided I needed to know a bit more about it, along with possibly most of the class in order to better judge or support it. Here is what I found:

I love this quote from the McCain website mostly because it is understandable and can be supported by both Democratic and Republican parties together.
"Our nation's future security and prosperity depends on the next President making the hard choices that will break our nation's strategic dependence on foreign sources of energy and will ensure our economic prosperity by meeting tomorrow's demands for a clean portfolio."

Senator McCain has imposed a plan called the Lexington Project; by following this plan he has hopes (and dont say hope is not enough you Obama supporters :) for strategic independence by 2025. "Together, we will break the power of OPEC over the United States. And never again will we leave our vital interests at the mercy of any foreign power."

How will we achieve independence by 2025!? Here's what McCain implies, " by authorizing new production, building nuclear plants, perfecting clean coal, improving our electricity grid, and supporting all the new technologies that one day will put the age of fossil fuels behind us. Much will be asked of industry as well, as automakers and others adapt to this great turn toward new sources of power. And a great deal will depend on each one of us, as we learn to make smarter use of energy, and also to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good."

As presented in class, this topic of global warming and alternative fuels isn't a rightist or leftist idea. This topic is one that is real, it was brought on mostly by the American people and our way of life. Unlike many Republicans McCain is very persistent in his ideas about global warming, he is ready to handle it, and ready to make American cleaner while being less dependent on foreign sources.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771-aec271bf823e.htm

Week 5 Item 7

Off Shore Drilling

By *Stacy Jelke

As discussed in the blog below, much of the information regarding the two presidential candidates views on global warming is becoming a little repetitive. As brought up in one of the presentations in class, McCain is an advocate for off shore drilling. This interested me and will produce definite changes in global warming so I decided to further my research and find out just what McCain's plan is with drilling off shore.

"McCain advocates offshore drilling not as a complete energy solution, but as one component of an “all of the above” strategy that would include increased conservation, alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels, and more traditional sources such as coal and nuclear energy."
The article I read stated that the move to drill off shore is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. "In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade. " McCain goes on to say there are 21 billion untapped barrels of oil in the United States and that its time for the ban on off shore drilling to be lifted. Many environmentalists are getting upset over McCain's ideas about drilling off shore and they are afraid the wild life will be tremendously disturbed. While McCain has traditionally sided with environmentalists on climate change, he has a mixed voting record on oil drilling and support for renewable energy.

This was a tough research topic for me because I do side with McCain on many of his ideas, however, this one I am stuck on. It just doesnt seem logical and like we'll be getting enough out of it in the end to justify the sacrifices made on the environment and wild life. I do understand using the oil offshore along with foreign oil, so that we wont have to rely on and buy as much foreign oil, although, like I said before, I'm not 100% condifent the environmental/wildlife issues at stake are worth risking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602731_2.html?sid=ST2008061700079&s_pos=

Week #4 Item #6

One of the biggest challenge that we have found while researching for our blogs is that it is really hard to find current news that concerns the elections and environmental issues. Especially with the General Election coming up, the candidates have put their focuses in other prime areas of the presidential debate. This next article that I am reporting on was published last year in October. Although it is not exactly a current article, I find it important in understanding the cap-and-trade program better. The cap-and-trade program often came up in the discussion of environmental policies, for example in one of the earlier blogs by McCain reporter Stacy Jelke, but it was a program that I was very unfamiliar with.

As I had reported in my earlier blog, the conflicts between oil and foreign affairs are probably one of the biggest challenges that we have as a nation. There are ways to be less dependent on foreign oil, but programs such as the coals-to-liquid program will not help our greenhouse emissions, but can maybe even worsen it. The cap-and-trade program is a system that we can build on domestically to cut greenhouse emissions.

Under a cap-and-trade plan, companies that produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases receive or buy credits that give them the right to emit a certain amount. Companies that emit less carbon than their credits allow can profit by selling any excess credits on the open market, while those that exceed their emission allowance have to make up the difference or face heavy fines.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-calls-pollution-cap-and-trade-program/story.aspx?guid=%7BE704950B-F8D6-49EB-9C20-BCCECEB72374%7D

To ensure that all violators pay for all the emissions their companies emit, Obama would require that all "credits" be auctioned on the open market. The higher the need for these emissions, then the higher the cost it will be. He hopes that in doing so, companies will find more environmentally friendly ways to operate. The differences in Obama's cap-and-trade program and his rivals is that all businesses will have to pay a price, there will be no one business that will not have follow these rules. There are many opponents to Obama's plan, one is President Bush, he believes that "such a move would hurt the economy and put the United States at a disadvantage to rapidly developing economies."

Under the Obama plan, the government would set annual reduction targets and would require that overall emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and would be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050....Obama's plan would also spend $150 billion over 10 years on the development of climate-friendly supplies and technologies and sets a goal of reducing overall oil consumption by 35%, or 10 million barrels, by 2030. It also calls on the United States to lead a new international partnership to combat global warming.

After reading this article, it made me a lot more hopeful for the outcome of our environment if Obama was to be elected. I agree with him that we need to take action, even if it does mean that it might hurt the economy now, but in the long run it is what's best. If we continue going down the route that we are going now, then we will never be able to fix our past mistakes and show the world that we are forward-thinking in our quest for a better environment-not just for Americans, but for the world. We are the top leaders in so many areas, and I don't think that environmentally friendly issues should be an exception.

Week 3, Item #5

"We are not acting as good stewards of God's Earth when our bottom line puts the size of our profits before the future of our planet."
-- Oct. 14, 2007, in a speech at an interfaith forum on climate change

This blog is focused on an interview between Amanda Griscom Little and Senator Barack Obama on the website Grist and Outside , a non-profit organization that focuses on environmental news located in Seattle, Washington.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama/

Through a series of question-and-answer, Little offers an excerpt of the Senator's beliefs and goals for the United States and its standings in the environmental affairs. He is not only proud of his good track record in environmental issues but realizes his obligations in upholding the task of voting on environmental-friendly bills. Some of his biggest contributors and endorsers of his campaign are groups like the Sierra Club and the LCV. Obama believes that environmental issues are apart of the "three most important issues" that we face here at home, along with a good education system and better health care. With that said, he also recognizes that the war in Iraq will be one of our biggest challenges as a nation, he believes that the American people have been able to witness the problems of this dependency on foreign oil through the war and the economy.

Q. You've received a lot of criticism from enviros of your support for coal-to-liquids technology. You recently shifted your position somewhat, but haven't retracted it. Why?
A. I was always firm that if the life-cycle carbon emissions of coal-to-liquid were higher than gasoline, we couldn't do it because it would contradict my position on reducing greenhouse gases. But I also believe that, because of the abundance of coal in the U.S., coal-based fuels could be a substitute for some of the oil we import from the Middle East, as long as we can reduce the resulting CO2 emissions to 20 percent below current levels from petroleum-based fuels.

The Senator received some backlash on the issue of CTL (coal-to liquids) technology from environmental-activists. Although the plan would limit our dependency on foreign oil, the greenhouse effects are much higher. Some critics also feel that his stance is partially affected by the fact that his home state of Illinois, is the coal capital of the country. They believe that it would "benefit industries in his home state of Illinois but do little if anything to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions". To me, the issue of CTL comes down to the problem of the lesser-of-two evils, as a country and part of the world, is it more important for us to reduce the damaging emissions, or is it more important for us to be less dependent on foreign energy.

My reaction to this interview was very ambivalent. I felt like the Senator had very many promising objectives but his plan at times seemed a bit vague. However, we do have to keep in mind that it was probably a short-term interview done over the phone. Obviously, not enough time to go into details about his cap-and-trade program or his proposal on National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Although I do realize that I am not an expert on a lot of these subjects, I do think that the environmental issue is something that the Senator is passionate about and it is something that is on the top of his agenda.

Week 2 Item 4

Even if it isn't real, would it not still be beneficial: McCain on Global Warming

By, Stacy Jelke

"For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction - toward machines, methods and industries that used oil and gas," said McCain. "Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren't counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans and all across the natural world." John McCain is reaching out to both independents and green social conservatives and expresses that global warming is real, undeniable and this country has to take steps to control it while still adhering to free-market principles. McCain says no in expanding nuclear power, we have the ability to reduce carbon-fuel emissions. He also would like to set a goal that by 2050, the country will reduce carbon emissions to a level 60 percent below that emitted in 1990. He is also promising to challenge China and India, two economic rivals who are fueling their challenge to U.S. market supremacy with heavily polluting fuels such as coal, gas and oil.
McCain has long believed for global warming to be a real and serious threat and he argues even if its not as problematic as we assume, acting as if the planet's temperature were increasing would only benefit the environment. As states in previous posts, McCain's solution is to impose a cap-and-trade program on carbon-fuel emissions. "As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy," he said. "More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt - and that is good economic policy." McCain closed his speech in Oregon by telling the people, if walrus, polar bears, and birds can adapt and respond to their new and dangerous conditions, than humanity can as well.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/national_world&id=6136494

Week #2 Item #3

The LCV

While researching Obama's position on global warming and other environmental factors, I found that I came across the acronyms "LCV" a lot. The League of Conservation Voters, the LCV which it is commonly referred to, is a political advocacy organization that supports pro-environmental candidates. One of the biggest accomplishments of the LCV is publishing the National Environmental Scorecard, a system of scores that helps rank candidates on their support for a better environment. It is interesting to note that through the LCV's endorsements, candidates have a better chance of succeeding. For example, in the 2006 elections, 8 out of the 12 candidates on the LCV's "Dirty Dozen List" went down in defeat. The Dirty Dozen list "targets current and former members of Congress-regardless of party affiliation-who consistently vote against the environment and are running in races where LCV has a serious chance of affecting the outcome" (http://lcv.org/2007-scorecard-overview.html).

Currently, Senator Barack Obama has the highest lifetime rating, and it is pretentiously shown throughout their organization's site. They make it very clear that they are pro-Obama in the 2008 presidential election.

The League of Conservation Voters has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President because his plan to stop global warming pollution will break America’s addiction to oil and will create jobs across the country. Moreover, Sen. Obama’s plan is more than words, it is backed by a strong environmental voting record and forward-looking policy proposals for America’s renewable energy future.
In his time in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Obama has been a consistent supporter and co-sponsor of pro-environment legislation, serving as a strong advocate for the environment. In the Illinois Senate, then State Sen. Obama earned a 100 percent “Environmental Voting Record Award” from the Illinois Environmental Council in 2003, which highlights his commitment to the environment at every step of his political career.

http://lcv.org/obama/obama-facts.html

And this is what they had to say about McCain and his relations to environmental change:

While the League of Conservation Voters recognizes Sen. John McCain is a candidate who is willing to engage in discussions on global warming, energy, and the environment, he repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues. In his 25 years in Congress, McCain has faced 294 crucial environmental votes and he voted in favor of the environment only 71 times -- earning a lifetime score from LCV of just 24 percent.
In 2007, Sen. McCain scored 0 percent, due to missing all 15 votes scored, including the key vote on repealing tax giveaways to Big Oil -- a measure that failed by just one vote.1 This year, instead of exerting leadership on the key energy challenges facing the nation, Sen. McCain has offered a series of harmful policy proposals recycled from the Bush administration including an massive expansion of offshore drilling and major tax breaks for oil companies.

http://lcv.org/obama/mccain-facts.html

Although I do think that the LCV can be somewhat bias and it is clear which party they are more likely to support, it is easy to understand why. Not only do they support their candidates, they are endorsed by them also. If you go on their 2008 Endorsements Site, it is easy to see how they aggressively "craft a pro-environment Congress".

Week 2 Item 2

McCain's Plan....Cap and Trade it!

By, Stacy Jelke

What is John McCain’s big plan for helping slow global warming? Much like his opposing candidate Barack Obama, he supports a “cap and trade system”. In this system:
A cap is a set, enforced limit on the amount of greenhouse gasses an economy can emit each year. Over time the cap gets tighter and the limit decreases until a target amount is hit and a cleaner economy is launched. Energy efficiency standards for vehicles will be instilled; smart-growth plans, building codes, transit investments, tax credits
for renewable energy, investment in energy research and development, utility
regulatory reforms—all manner of public actions can move us toward our climate
goals. But the cap is our only guarantee that we will get there.
The trade means that, by law, companies can exchange the permission to emit greenhouse gases.
The whole point in putting a price on polluting is to motivate people to find ways to reduce their carbon emissions. Many people believe this plan will raise energy prices even higher. This is false. Fossil fuel prices are already at an all time high just because of basic supply and demand. A cap and trade will probably just maintain the high prices not raise them further. A well designed trading system will encourage efficiency, innovation and low cost solutions. In the long term, cap and trade will reduce the demand for dirty energy and make new and upcoming cleaner technologies more affordable and more available.
Most importantly, a well-designed cap-and-trade climate policy will allow us to “take
charge of our energy future, rescuing ourselves from our fossil-fuel dependence.”

So why would McCain support a ‘cap and trade program’?
n brief: Why cap and trade?
1.) It’s been tested and proven. A cap-and-trade system worked cheaply and efficiently to
reduce acid rain pollution in the United States in the 1990s.
2.) It’s cost-effective. A cap provides market incentives to steadily reduce pollution in
a cost-effective and efficient manner, encouraging a healthy shift away from the insecurity of fossil fuels.
3.) It’s economically sound. Today, we produce the highest amounts of pollution ever had. A cap and trade allows our businesses and families to get used to using less CO2 slowly, at a gradual
pace that is safe and manageable. We can adjust through fuel efficiency and
increased renewable energy resources like solar and wind power.
4.) It’s a cautious, long-term investment. The key to our long-term fortune and a stable
economy is a shift away from oil. This shift can work for businesses and consumers, allowing us to take charge of rising energy costs, invest in new technologies, and ensure a smooth transition. Right now, we’re sending billions of dollars a year out of local economies to pay for dirty energy.
5.) Most importantly, the cap is a solid boundary to the path to success. No policy
measure can substitute for setting a solid cap on the greenhouse gas emissions that
are allowed into the atmosphere; it’s our firm guarantee that we will meet crucial
pollution targets.

http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/cap-and-trade-101/Cap-Trade_online.pdf