Will McCain Abandon Cap and Trade

John McCain likes to point to his record on climate change as an example of an issue on which he differs with the Bush administration. But over time his once good-for-a-Republican record on this has started to look more and more threadbare. He wound up abandoning the legislative process formerly known as McCain-Lieberman, and actively opposed its successor, the McCain-Warner bill. McCain opposes all known efforts to encourage renewable electrical sources, and he's repeatedly promised to try to encourage low gasoline prices through increased drilling and reductions in taxes on oil companies. And now here's McCain economic adviser Steve Forbes more-or-less promising that McCain would, in practice, abandon cap and trade on carbon emissions:

Brad Johnson notes that if McCain follows Forbes here, he'll be following in the footsteps of Bush who promised to regulate carbon dioxide on the campaign trail in 2000 before deciding he liked pollution a lot.

McCain's increasingly watered-down position on climate has managed to pay dividends in terms of a huge spike in campaign contributions from oil and gas interests. It's McCain's right to sell out on this topic, but one hopes that if executives for polluting companies can notice that McCain's changes his stripes here that campaign reporters can as well.

UPDATE: Two things. First, clearly, that should be the "Lieberman-Warner" bill that McCain now opposes. Also, I'm told that McCain now says he favors renewable energy tax incentives even though he's always voted against them in the past.

Comments

He'll shame the energy companies into emitting less carbon!

Isn't it time for another love poem from Chiat [sp]?

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | July 28, 2008 4:30 PM

Has McCain ever drafted a piece of legislation that he hasn't later denounced?

Posted by dannity | July 28, 2008 4:40 PM

he'll be following in the footsteps of Bush who promised to regulate carbon dioxide on the campaign trail in 2000 before deciding he liked pollution a lot.

Now now, Matthew, let's be fair. Bush is more likely agnostic about pollution but likes polluters a lot.

Posted by drjimcooper | July 28, 2008 4:50 PM

Isn't it the Lieberman-Warner bill?

Posted by Brian | July 28, 2008 5:11 PM

You really have to wonder about the possibility of a quid pro quo here, which is the dividing line between legal campaign contributions and illegal bribes.

Any conversations between his campaign and representatives of the polar bear drowning industry along the lines of, if Sen. McCain supports offshore drilling, we're prepared to be helpful to him and to support his campaign financially.

I suppose as a GOP politician you always know that selling out will be lucrative in terms of campaign fundraising, but the McCain flip-flop on drilling and the immediate and massive June donations are so tightly connected here that it seems likely that these industries extracted certain representations from the campaign.

Clearly, after McCain's drilling position changed, they began strongly supporting him. Did they do so after someone associated with his campaign played let's make a deal with Big Oil?

From Think Progress:

UPDATE: At the Washington Post, Matthew Mosk writes that McCain has actually received over $1 million in June alone, most after he reversed his opposition to offshore drilling and began repeating false oil industry talking points:

"Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month — three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban — compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html

Posted by bob | July 28, 2008 5:21 PM

"And now here's McCain economic adviser Steve Forbes more-or-less promising that McCain would, in practice, abandon cap and trade on carbon emissions"

What's your problem with that Matt? If it's such a good idea, then you should be happy that your candidate will be the only one advocating for such a scheme. I cannot wait for the One to make this the centerpiece of his engery agenda. Telling people that they need to pay more based on their carbon emissions and energy usage because of fears of "global warming" or is it "global climate change" is bound to be a surefire campaign issue in the fall. So go for it. LOL

Posted by Chicounsel | July 28, 2008 5:39 PM

Chicounsel, I think you'd be surprised. There's a reason McCain is trying to act like an environmentally friendly Republican.

There's also a reason why the GOP collectively basically might as well have smallpox. The science is in on global warming, and it's beginning to effect our lives. They more you deny it, the more voters you'll bleed.

Posted by dannity | July 28, 2008 5:50 PM

Telling people that they need to pay more based on their carbon emissions and energy usage because of fears of "global warming" or is it "global climate change" is bound to be a surefire campaign issue in the fall.

And therein lies the answer as to why the Republicans failed so miserably at governing when they finally achieved power. They became masters at short-term politics, and showed themselves to be complete and utter incompetents at providing what the nation actually needs.

Fortunately, it appears that the American people have seen them for what they are. Here's hoping for a GOP bloodbath in November. Maybe then they'll reinvent themselves as a party that actually wants to do some good for our country ... not that I'm going to hold my breath.

Posted by LFC | July 28, 2008 5:52 PM

Even if McCain hadn't reneged on this position so explicitly, we have to remember that the president doesn't merely vote yea or nay on issues x y and z. The president actively sets policies through executive orders, appointments, etc.

Just because a presidential candidate takes the side of the angels on a given issue doesn't mean that they will do anything about it. Even if McCain were still, in his heart of hearts, supportive of cap and trade doesn't mean that he would make any effort to push the issue. He would probably just appoint industry shills to head the EPA and sit by as Republicans filibuster any actual bills on the subject.

A few commentators (I'm thinking specifically of Marc Ambinder here) have been portraying McCain's recent statements on Iraq timetables as evidence that his position on withdrawal is approaching that of Obama (and the American people). The fact that he says he might be open to a withdrawal plan now has no real bearing on whether or not he would actually push for such a change in deployment.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | July 28, 2008 8:56 PM