McCain calls for energy-efficient government

advertisement

SANTA BARBARA — Republican John McCain said Tuesday the federal government should practice the energy efficiency he preaches, pledging as president to switch official vehicles to green technologies and do the same for office buildings.

Expanding upon his ideas to address the nation's energy crisis, the Arizona senator also called for a redesign of the national power grid so power is better distributed where it's needed and the country has the capacity to run electric vehicles that he wants automakers to supply.

"Our federal government is never shy about instructing the American people in good environmental practice. But energy efficiency, like charity, should begin at home," McCain said before conducting an energy round-table at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

McCain drives a 2003 Cadillac CTS, a sedan the Environmental Protection Agency says gets 16 to 24 miles per gallon and emits about 9.6 tons of greenhouse gases annually. When campaigning, he's ferried by the Secret Service using a fleet of Chevrolet Suburbans, a full-size SUV the EPA estimates gets 12 to 20 mpg and emits 9 to 13 tons of greenhouse gases.

During the discussion, McCain made a comment likely to provoke discussion in Nevada, where he campaigns Wednesday and is the site of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. McCain long has supported the facility, much to the chagrin of pivotal Nevada voters, although last month he suggested creating a foreign waste repository that might make the mountain site unnecessary.

McCain reiterated his support Tuesday for building up to 45 new nuclear power plants and said the technology exists for safe nuclear waste reprocessing and storage.

"It's not a technological breakthrough that needs to be taken; it's a NIMBY problem," he said, using the acronym for "Not-In-My-Backyard." "We've got to have the guts and courage to do what other countries are doing, and they are reducing the pollution to our environment rather dramatically without any huge pain to anybody."

Later in the day, during a telephone town-hall meeting with Florida voters, a mother of two sons asked McCain under what circumstances he could envision a return to a military draft.

The Vietnam veteran said none, "except perhaps if we were in an all-out World War III. ... I do not believe a draft is even practicable nor desirable unless it was an all-out world war."

Among those on the energy panel was Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain backer who opposes another major element of the candidate's energy strategy — ending a decades-old federal ban on offshore drilling. McCain has said he would leave the decision to the states if the moratorium were lifted.

"John and I both know we can protect our environment and our economy at the same time," Schwarzenegger said in his opening remarks. He did not mention offshore drilling.

"I have every confidence that once Senator McCain is in the White House, America will get back in the game when it comes to a sensible, consistent and forward-looking energy policy," Schwarzenegger added.

Offshore drilling is particularly sensitive in this coastal community 100 miles north of Los Angeles, where a 1969 oil spill dumped an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean.

Despite emphasizing the optional nature of his proposal, McCain has heard complaints about it throughout his two days of campaigning in California, a Democratic-leaning state the GOP hopes to put in play in the general election.

"We're really kind of goosey here about oil spills, and we're goosey here about federal drilling and oil lands, which are abundant offshore," Dan Secord, a member of the California Coastal Commission, told McCain during a Santa Barbara fundraiser Monday night.

McCain acknowledged offshore drilling would do little to immediately lower record gasoline prices, but he argued that the specter of additional supply would undercut speculation that has driven the price to more than $4 a gallon.

"Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial," the senator said during a town-hall meeting in Fresno.

His Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, criticized McCain's claim of a psychological benefit as political posturing.

"In case you're wondering, in Washington-speak what that means is it polls well. It's an example of how Washington tries to convince you that they've done something to make your life better when they really didn't," said Obama, who was campaigning in Las Vegas.

"The American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks ... they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on the table," Obama said.

During the round-table discussion, McCain received some of the straight talk for which he has a reputation.

Michael Feeney, executive director of the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, was unyielding in his criticism of McCain's call for building 45 nuclear power plants and drilling offshore.

"I don't understand how it's not compromising our environmental standards to propose a crash program to build more nuclear power plants, when the industry has not complied with the federal law that requires the safe disposal for the radioactive waste," Feeney said.

___

On the Net:

http://www.johnmccain.com

  • 8 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
4.5
2.2
1.7
{"commentId":2027424,"authorDomain":"dbourdeau"}

I think this is the best idea I have heard of about our energy crisis in this campaign. This will bring new excitement into developing a battery that will eliminate our need for oil. Hurrah McCain!!

{"commentId":2027424,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"dbourdeau"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:38 AM EDT
{"commentId":2030622,"authorDomain":"wingod"}

Amen!

Good job McCain! (the first time that I have been able to say this about him in this election cycle)

{"commentId":2030622,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"wingod"}
  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:58 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":2027570,"authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}

I've actually been thinking about something like this for a while. I was thinking a similar prize to the company that is able to release a car that get 60 miles per gallon, one that is commercially viable of course (as in they would have to produce over a certain number in order to get the prize).

In any case, it's a good idea on McCain's part. Still won't vote for the man. Hope Obama steals my idea!

{"commentId":2027570,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"thecivicvoice"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:22 AM EDT
{"commentId":2027916,"authorDomain":"SepticSkeptic"}

Sounds like that prize that was offered for the first civilian space launch. With luck, this will cause competition between several companies to develop such a battery. I'm guessing that the prize winning battery won't even be the best battery, just the first one. Then everyone else can compare notes on all of the batteries and the best one can be adopted even if it wasn't the first one finished.

I also like the tax credit for zero-emissions cars. I really don't think giving consumers the tax break would have the same effect, since it wouldn't entice the automakers to get the cars on the market in the first place. American consumers, I think, will buy the cars out of enlightened self-interest more readilly than automakers will build them out of that motivation. The American public is definitely a lot greener than corporate America. So I think the money is being waved under the right noses here.

{"commentId":2027916,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"SepticSkeptic"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:28 AM EDT
{"commentId":2028815,"authorDomain":"gabby3239"}

it only took him 26 years to think of it , its a campaign gimmick and another reason to not let this idiot close to the presidency, if he had said it back in the 80's when this energy problem began to damage our economy I would have said hurray too but he has been a staunch supporter of big oil his entire career. And this pandering to environmentalist at this stage is a insult to all that have pushed seriously for so many years

{"commentId":2028815,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"gabby3239"}
    Reply#4 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:10 AM EDT
    {"commentId":2041928,"authorDomain":"dcash5"}

    The reality is that solving the energy problem is going to require all of the solutions proposed from both sides of the isle. At least McCain is showing an appreciation for the scale of the problem, and is proposing multi-faceted solutions from both sides of the issue that when combined together would have a positive effect.

    Obama is stuck in a delusion that we can innovate our way out of this problem, and that no other solution is required. While I don't normally support excessive regulation, I do like the idea of regulating short term investments--so long as it is applied universally to all short term investments. If we had better regulation of short term investments, we might have averted the real estate price bubble we are all suffering from now as well.

    As for drilling, with 71% of Americans now supporting drilling for our own oil, we'll see if Obama can get on board with the American people, or if he remains true to his typical partisanship, and environmental lobbyists. That will tell me a lot about his character.

    I personally think McCain is a poor choice for president, but he at least is willing to put the good of the nation ahead of his political image. He understands that his current position will be viewed as pandering, and is willing to take that risk because it is the right thing to do. Yes, he should have gone there sooner, but despite your desires, the American public has not been willing to get on board with energy independence until recently. I don't fault him for adjusting his position to match public opinion.

    {"commentId":2041928,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"dcash5"}
      #4.1 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:18 PM EDT
      {"commentId":2042083,"authorDomain":"dcash5"}

      The fact that you are offended that it took him so long to come around instead of being glad that he finally has shows that you are more interested in partisanship than you are actual solutions.

      The reality is that Oil is and has been the backbone of our nation for many years, and will continue to be until people quit whining and get some viable alternatives figured out. So many people want to point the finger at the oil companies for failing to save the planet. What moron ever thought that the oil companies would be the logical choice for figuring out how to reduce our dependence on oil? They are oil companies, and they are obligated to their stockholders--not to the environmentalists. Their job is to protect the demand for their product. You can't blame them for doing what they are supposed to do.

      Any other industry is just as capable of developing alternative technology as the oil companies, and has much greater incentive to do so. If we really wanted our alternative technology developed, we wouldn't be relying on oil companies who have every incentive to keep the status quo. To cry foul that this is environmentally irresponsible is in and of itself irresponsible.

      {"commentId":2042083,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"dcash5"}
      • 1 vote
      #4.2 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:42 PM EDT
      Reply
      {"commentId":2028818,"authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}

      [reads headline]

      WOW! I had no idea McCain had that much money! He's loaded!

      How can he be having trouble financing his campaign with that much personal wealth?

      [reads story]

      The presumed Republican nominee is proposing a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology. The bounty would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country, "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Monday at Fresno State University in California.

      Oh, yeah...it's not his money to give away.

      {"commentId":2028818,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"PurelyPolitical"}
      • 3 votes
      Reply#5 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:11 AM EDT
      {"commentId":2029359,"authorDomain":"votenic"}
      votenicDeleted
      {"commentId":2030280,"authorDomain":"rfunk"}

      I'm just wondering where the money is coming from. If I overlooked that part in the article please let me know. But does anyone know where the money is coming from?

      {"commentId":2030280,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"rfunk"}
        Reply#7 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:17 PM EDT
        {"commentId":2030299,"authorDomain":"Emily"}

        Hi votenic,

        Thanks for commenting around Newsvine.

        Please remember not to advertise at the end of your comments per the Code of Honor.

        You are welcome to re-post the portion of your message regarding the article.

        Thank you!

        {"commentId":2030299,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"Emily"}
          Reply#8 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:20 PM EDT
          {"commentId":2031827,"authorDomain":"feelgood-v700"}

          It is a better idea than sticking corn in your car!!!!

          {"commentId":2031827,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"feelgood-v700"}
            Reply#9 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:32 PM EDT
            {"commentId":2032082,"authorDomain":"wingod"}

            FEEL

            Isn't that kind like sticking a corn cob up your..........

            er you know.

            {"commentId":2032082,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"wingod"}
            • 1 vote
            #9.1 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:03 PM EDT
            Reply
            {"commentId":2033763,"authorDomain":"gmarez"}

            LOL.

            The industry is already spending BILLIONS of dollars a year in research. This is nothing but a joke.

            {"commentId":2033763,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"gmarez"}
              Reply#10 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:54 PM EDT
              {"commentId":2034545,"authorDomain":"wingod"}

              Actually it isn't. The problem with batteries is big and you just never know where the next innovation might come from. This is a great way to support innovation without having to pay out taxpayer money unless there is a solution.

              So no George, this is a brilliant idea.

              {"commentId":2034545,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"wingod"}
              • 1 vote
              #10.1 - Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:29 PM EDT
              {"commentId":2049846,"authorDomain":"gmarez"}

              It's pandering for votes, nothing more, nothing less.

              {"commentId":2049846,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"gmarez"}
                #10.2 - Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:55 PM EDT
                Reply
                {"commentId":2041708,"authorDomain":"dcash5"}

                People are so polarized on this issue as though any one solution will resolve the problem. The reality that drilling may not produce oil for 5-10 years does not change the fact that developing alternatives, and changing over the infrastructure of our society will take 20 to 30 years. The solution is going to have to be multi-faceted, and both sides are going to have to give a little. The solution to this problem must be looked at in terms of time frame:

                1) Short term - Draw 2 million barrels of oil/day from our reserves to ease the current price pressure. We have enough reserves to do this for up to 10 years until step 2 below can be implemented, and still maintain a 2 year supply for emergency. The many BILLIONS in revenue from the sale of Oil from our reserves would be used to fund an aggressive R&D project on cost effective alternative energy sources. The R&D plan needs to involve all alternative energy sources as well as energy saving technologies, and have timelines and milestones set to monitor progress.

                2) Intermediate term - Become oil independent by harvesting the oil we have, and using it until the alternatives are implemented into society. We have plenty of oil right here in the USA if we just go get it. It's estimated that we have enough just in our shale oil to last 110 years at current consumption rates. But consumption is not the ultimate goal--only a temporary step until alternatives can be implemented into our society.

                3) Long term - Become fossil fuel independent by replacing fossil fuel equipment with eco friendly and more cost effective alternatives.

                The first key to this plan is to stop believing that the oil companies are going to save the planet. They are oil companies. The alternatives are their competition. You can't blame a company for failing to slit it's own throat. Get someone else doing this research instead of expecting oil companies to turn on their stockholders. Doing the same thing, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

                The second key is to actually do the research, and expect real results. We need to be determined to be off of foreign oil within 10 years, and to have cost effective alternatives in place to have us off of fossil fuels within 30 years including the time to change over our societies infrastructure.

                The third, and most important key is that we have to quit pointing fingers at the other side of the isle, and work together on the solution. We currently are gridlocked in this country, and nothing will happen until we get past our extreme partisanship. Just as we worked together to put a man on the moon in the 60's, there is little we can't do by working together. As it stands now, the only thing either side does is tear down the other, so nothing gets accomplished.

                {"commentId":2041708,"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037","authorDomain":"dcash5"}
                • 1 vote
                Reply#11 - Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:43 PM EDT
                {"canLink":false,"threadId":"296664","isPrivate":false}
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                {"threadId":"296664","contentId":"1601037"}
                Start TrackingStart Tracking
                Stop TrackingStop Tracking