War is Peace

In a striking turn of events, the McCain campaign has produced a good ad for their candidate:

Of course the idea that if you're primarily concerned about climate change you ought to vote for John McCain is ludicrous on the merits. Not as ludicrous as the idea that McCain is the candidate of peace, but maybe someone should ask McCain how he plans to "curb" carbon emissions while opposing a "mandatory cap" on them. Or why a candidate eager to tackle climate change would vote against the Climate Security Act.

Comments

Or why he would favor the absurd "gas tax holiday."

Posted by Leo | June 17, 2008 3:12 PM

Oh, the case against the Climate Security act is easy for a warming believer. Why lock in a terrible, complex, pork-filled cap and trade system, when next year McCain (or Obama) could (theoretically) pass a much simpler, stricter and more efficient cap + trade system as president.

Posted by jamie | June 17, 2008 3:20 PM

Since it wouldn't be a McCain ad without some bit of jaw-dropping absurdity, what's with the first four seconds? I would've assumed it was a sloppy capture that included a bit of the previous program, but it seems to be from his official YouTube channel.

Posted by Matt Weiner | June 17, 2008 3:20 PM

"John McCain. Reform. Prosperity. Peace."

It's the world's easiest game of One of These Things Is Not Like the Others!

Posted by ML | June 17, 2008 3:37 PM

I think the 'McCain Cribs' video would really seal his bad-video fame even if every ad he produces for the rest of the election is superb. It makes the headless rock star ad look really quality.

Posted by Sam L | June 17, 2008 3:42 PM

The point of the ad has nothing to do with his position on energy. It is about trying to run as a Democrat and against Bush. You did notice, of course, the headline saying McCain was at odds with the GOP?

Posted by Cap and Gown | June 17, 2008 3:50 PM

maybe someone should ask McCain how he plans to "curb" carbon emissions while opposing a "mandatory cap" on them.

Perhaps through a "cap and trade". Which is different than a mandatory cap.

Why does Matthew keep embarassing himself over him inability to grasp the difference?

Posted by Al | June 17, 2008 3:53 PM

Since it wouldn't be a McCain ad without some bit of jaw-dropping absurdity, what's with the first four seconds? I would've assumed it was a sloppy capture that included a bit of the previous program, but it seems to be from his official YouTube channel.

It's reminiscent of the Koyaanisqatsi films and seems to imply the sun setting on our current trend of carbon based fuel consumption.

It's too bad that the notion of taxation is so antithetical to Republicans, because if John McCain were to oppose the cap and trade system with target dates of reducing supply in favour of an across the board carbon tax it would make some sense. As it stands he just seems to be taking a watered down version of the Democratic plan rather than offering an alternative methodology to reach the same end goals.

And Al, without a limited and ever decreasing number of permits with which to be traded in any system it will fail to meet the ultimate objective of reducing carbon based fuel consumption. How do you trade or value something with a nigh unlimited supply?

Posted by moniker | June 17, 2008 4:29 PM

Al,

Matt keeps embarrassing himself b/c he hates McCain more then he respects himself.

Posted by Ajay | June 17, 2008 4:33 PM

Al: When you bold the second part of "cap and trade" it doesn't actually make the cap disappear.

I sort of thought it was self evident, but cap and trade policies use a mandatory cap on emissions and allow permits below that cap to be traded. This has the advantage of letting the market set the price of carbon, but doesn't actually work to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere unless the mandatory cap is part of it.

So opposing the mandatory cap, shockingly, implies opposition to a cap and trade policy. Unless he's lying about one of those positions...

Posted by Sam L | June 17, 2008 4:44 PM

Al: When you bold the second part of "cap and trade" it doesn't actually make the cap disappear.

I sort of thought it was self evident, but cap and trade policies use a mandatory cap on emissions and allow permits below that cap to be traded. This has the advantage of letting the market set the price of carbon, but doesn't actually work to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere unless the mandatory cap is part of it.

So opposing the mandatory cap, shockingly, implies opposition to a cap and trade policy. Unless he's lying about one of those positions...

Posted by Sam L | June 17, 2008 4:45 PM

The most insidious, and as yet unremarked, aspect is his plan to create emissions "banks," which will immediately commence deficit lending of future emissions until more "Economically Efficient Periods" (excess capitalization in original). The relevant passages of his website:

" Permitting "Banking" And "Borrowing" Of Permits So That Emission Reductions May Be Accelerated Or Deferred To More Economically Efficient Periods."

Not just within a region, but worldwide - facilitated by the, I kid you not, the CCCC: Climate Change Credit Corporation.

It's hard to summarize in a comment post, and I not even as knowledgeable as those on this blog, but reading McCain's Climate Change page, it certainly gives the impression that he intends to expend a lot of effort to set up all the mechanisms of his Cap'n Trade like a financial market for the express purpose of 'borrowing' from the future even longer.

And he has pictures of windmills and solar panels, but only ever talks about Nuclear and Oil.

Posted by Chasm | June 17, 2008 5:19 PM

Damn, I didn't get this until my last post was posting: All the excess word capitalization on McCain's Climate Change webpage is just a subtle reminder to the oil and energy guys that he's a dyed-in-the-wool "Capitalist."

(sorry)

Posted by Chasm | June 17, 2008 5:24 PM

Wow, really? McCain had the prescience to cite global warming as a problem "five years ago" (and do nothing about it)? The science has been pretty well on that side of things for quite a bit longer than five years, I believe. I'm not a climate scientist, but I am an expert on high school debate as it was practiced in 1997-98, and I can tell you there was an awful lot of literature out there sounding an alarm.

Posted by jhupp | June 17, 2008 6:38 PM

If this is a good ad for McCain I don't want to see what's bad.

Posted by Naveen | June 17, 2008 11:39 PM