Nuclear McCain

It became clear over the weekend that some elements in the press are going to attempt, in spite of all the evidence, to suggest that Obama and McCain are "really" the same. The centerpiece for any such argument would have to be climate change, where McCain genuinely has broken with the Bush administration's horrible record and come out in favor of reducing carbon emissions. And it should be conceded up front that reducing emissions by any amount, however inadequate, would be a big improvement over the Bush plan of ever-increasing emissions.

But lurking within McCain's agenda is a striking level of vacuity. Right now, the federal government spends a lot of money on roads and very little money on railroads. Moving freight on railroads emits less carbon than does moving freight on roads. And moving people on railroads emits less carbon than does moving people on roads. Ergo, one good way to reduce carbon emissions would be to shift some of our spending off of roads and onto rail. This needn't entail any increase in overall spending levels so there are no reasons of fiscal tightwadery that conservatives would need to oppose such a measure. And yet, McCain doesn't seem to favor it.

What's more, McCain doesn't seem to favor any changes in federal policy that would lead to reduced carbon emissions. He has no proposals to reduce driving and no proposals to increase energy efficiency. What's more, he opposes subsidies to clean sources of electricity. This last he nominally does on the conservative grounds that we shouldn't be interfering with the normal operation of the market. That seems like a plausible view to take, except McCain isn't opposed to nuclear subsidies. Indeed, he very strongly favors them. Favors them, Dave Roberts points out, to the extent that he said he would vote against the most moderate cap-and-trade plan in the congress on the grounds that it doesn't include sufficient subsidies for nuclear power.

That's the kind of position you would expect a lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry to take -- not someone who's serious about reducing carbon emissions. Anything that puts a price on carbon, whether or not in includes explicit subsidies, will be good for the nuclear energy industry. And if additional subsidies on top of that are the price it takes to convince unprincipled Senators -- like, apparently, John McCain -- to vote for an overall good bill then that's a price worth paying. But on the merits the McCain position, "yes to cap-and-trade if and only if it contains large subsidies for nuclear power" verges on the insane. Or, rather, it makes a lot of sense in terms of McCain's prodigious fundraising from the energy industry but it's very hard to understand on the merits.

Photo of Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power by Flickr user Mandj98 used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Re: It became clear over the weekend that some elements in the press are going to attempt, in spite of all the evidence, to suggest that Obama and McCain are "really" the same.

Not sure this helps McCain because the main talking point being floated by the GOP hacks is that Obama is a radical leftwinger. Over on NRO even Stanley Kurtz is ignoring the red flags thrown in NY and CA on the gay marriage issue, and is instead harping about Obama's fringe friends and even friends of friends.

Posted by JonF | June 10, 2008 8:23 PM

That's the kind of position you would expect a lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry to take -- not someone who's serious about reducing carbon emissions.

Given what we know McCain did for Paxon--and why--I gotta believe the nuclear industry lobbyists must be smokin' hot.

Posted by jlw | June 10, 2008 8:28 PM

Well, all of this is just stupid - nothing we do is going to impact the climate in any way we understand, and the "cap and trade" scheme will cost us growth. Basing your policy on the uncertainty principle is stupid. Then there's this:

"What's more, he opposes subsidies to clean sources of electricity. This last he nominally does on the conservative grounds that we shouldn't be interfering with the normal operation of the market. That seems like a plausible view to take, except McCain isn't opposed to nuclear subsidies. Indeed, he very strongly favors them. Favors them, Dave Roberts points out, to the extent that he said he would vote against the most moderate cap-and-trade plan in the congress on the grounds that it doesn't include sufficient subsidies for nuclear power."

At least McCain is rational enough to recognize that we won't get anything more than a trivial amount of power from wind, solar (et.al.).

He also seems to recognize (unlike Jimmy Carter 2) that telling people to ramp down their lifestyle is a non-starter. So what power options are there if you have a weird fixation on CO2?

Nuclear, and that's about it. Especially when the Democratic party actually opposed building windmills in any of the locations where they might be useful, either on environmental or eyesore grounds.

Posted by James Robertson | June 10, 2008 9:07 PM

Re: He also seems to recognize (unlike Jimmy Carter 2) that telling people to ramp down their lifestyle is a non-starter.

You fail to realize that for many of us, getting America (and modern society in general) to 'ramp down its lifestyle' is a goal in and of itself, quite appart from its effect on global climate change. Many of us believe that the hedonistic utopia that modern capitalist society aspires towards is evil in and of itself, because it makes it more difficult- and in the final analysis, impossible- to achieve the truly valuable human goods.

It seems to me that a true conservative (in the T.S. Eliot mode) would be a great supporter of this idea, and would recognize that a society that maximizes wealth, freedom and comfort is not a society in which "conservative" values like obedience, loyalty, chastity, authority, piety, redemption through suffering, and deference to tradition can flourish. Then again, I've never failed to be impressed at how American conservatives are really unwilling to 'conserve' anything worth conserving.

Posted by Hector | June 10, 2008 9:36 PM

Matthew writes,

And moving people on railroads emits less carbon than does moving people on roads.

There is virtually no realistic potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions by shifting passenger travel from road to rail.

At best, rail reduces passenger-mile carbon emissions by about 70% compared to road travel.

Rail of all kinds combined (heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail) comprises less than 1% of all passenger miles travelled in the United States.

Transportation as a whole accounts for only about 25% of our total carbon emissions.

So even if we doubled rail's share of total passenger miles, and all of those extra rail miles came out of road's share of passenger miles, we would reduce our total carbon emissions by less than one-fifth of one percent (70% of 1% of 25%).

Even just doubling rail's share is implausible. According to the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission that you yourself recently referenced, it would take almost 20 years of "high" mass transit funding just to increase the market share of mass transit as a whole (which includes non-rail mass transit) by even 0.5%.

You can quibble with these numbers--although they are based on assumptions favorable to rail--but under any remotely plausible scenario switching from road vehicles to passenger rail could yield only a minuscule reduction in total carbon emissions.

Posted by Mixner | June 10, 2008 9:36 PM

Gee, Hector, there isn't one of those "conservative values" I would wipe my ass with. And I thought I was critical of our hypercapitalist "lifestyle," too.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 10, 2008 10:38 PM

While I do not agree with McCain's stance, Matt is making it sound too obvious here that the nuclear industry should receive the same analysis as other energy sectors. The security issues surrounding nuclear plants & material bring the nuclear industry much more firmly within the grasps of the Federal techno-bureaucracy. The fossil fuel industry began as a free enterprise. Governmental bodies did play some role in granting licenses & defending claims, but this all began to take shape in the 1800's when regulation was a mere scintilla relative to today's standards.

Contrariwise, our nuclear technology began as a government project. The private sector has been allowed into the realm; compare that to fossil fuels where government had to elbow its way in to get tougher regulations. Even granting the right to build or operate a nuclear plant is a government-subsidy of the nuclear industry, this is not so for other energy markets.

At any rate, it is silly to get so shrill over a minor rhetorical point when there are several problems with McCain's failure to understand the crisis over energy policy. McCain fails to recognize that the energy market is already severely distorted by the failure to internalize the costs of greenhouse gases and other pollution.

Posted by Mark Entel | June 10, 2008 11:51 PM

You might want to read Frontline's coverage of nuclear power. Expecting to power the country with solar and wind power is like building a house out of popsicle sticks- it's possible in theory but not plausible. And while we're pushing for clean energy, the country's still running on coal.

Posted by Seth | June 11, 2008 12:49 PM

If you're pushing for clean energy, except it has to be non-nuclear, you're pushing for dirty energy.

Posted by G. R. L. Cowan, boron combustion fan | June 13, 2008 6:34 PM

My understanding is that the cap-and-trade bill, as it currently stands, has very large subsidies for renewables, conservation and carbon capture and storage (CCS) but none for nuclear power. A fraction of the huge amount of money the govt. will take in through the auction of carbon credits will pay for these subsidies. In addition to the above subsidies/programs, one program that merely treats (supports) all emissions-free sources equally is also present. Some "environmentalists" are even trying to have that last program removed (since it has the gall to allow the possibility of helping nuclear). These subsidies (for all emissions-free sources except nuclear) run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is clearly unfair and indefensible, and this (I believe) is what McCain is objecting to. He's saying that if the other emissions-free sources must be subsidized, than nuclear should be as well (roughly eqaully). Since at least some of those other options (e.g., CCS and anything to do with biomass) have non-GW-related environmental impacts that are greater than nuclear, his position is quite justified.

The best approach would be to simply have a cap-and-trade system, and then have the govt. get out of the way. If any CO2 credits are auctioned the money should be used for deficeit reduction, or other non-related taxes should be reduced. The whole idea behind cap-and-trade is to let the market decide the most economical means of reducing emissions. But alas, it seems that the govt. is incapable of not involving itself, and trying to make sure that politically-favored energy sources get an advantage.

All (we) nuclear supporters want is for nuclear to be given a chance to compete with other non-emitting sources on a fair, level playing field. The current GW bill clearly shows that there are elements in the govt. who are trying desperately trying to prevent nuclear being given that opportunity. This is because they know the real, most likely, result. Most of the new emissions-free production will be nuclear unless massive interventions (subsidies) are imposed to change the result.

Posted by JimHopf | June 13, 2008 7:20 PM