Salon: McCain lies about his support of clean energy

[Wags]

The facts are clear. All you have to do is look at his voting record. It reveals that McCain has long been one of the strongest opponents of clean energy in Congress, with a record matching that of James Inhofe, the most hardcore global-warming denier in the Senate, who comes from the heart of the oil patch in Oklahoma.

Recently the Associated Press noted that "McCain has not shown up for eight Senate votes last year and this year to extend [renewable energy] tax credits, which expire at the end of this year. The last such vote was July 30." Yet at an Aspen Institute meeting in August, when McCain was asked about those missed votes, he simply lied to the audience.

"I have a long record of that support of alternate energy," McCain said. "I come from a state where we have sunshine 360 days a year ... I've always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote."

In fact, on Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate was considering a bill to spend $13 billion on renewable power over five years. The cloture vote to allow the amendment to be brought to the Senate floor required 60 votes; it received 59 for, 40 against, and one senator absent. Yes, you guessed it: No McCain. A spokesman later said he would have voted to block the bill.

Again, in February, the Senate tried to include in a stimulus package an extension of the renewable tax credit, plus nearly $3 billion more for alternate energy. The cloture vote again failed 59-40-1. And again, McCain's absence didn't kill an unpopular alternative energy bill -- it stopped a popular bill from even coming to a vote.

Yet McCain continues to insist: "I have not missed any crucial vote." He would seem to be either a practiced liar who can fake sincerity, a pathological liar who believes his lies, or a man with simply no memory of key events several months earlier.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/20/john_mccain_environment/index.html?source=rss&aim=/env/feature

[Black Landlord]

OK, so yeah, McCain his a poor record of showing up to do his job; you probably would too if your war injuries were as serious as his. I think senators deserve sick days like everyone else.
The thing I wonder about, though-- his job basically entails carrying out the wishes of his consituents-- is it not possible that he personally is a champion of "clean energy" but is forced to vote according to what his constituency wants?
Don't you guys ever get tired of hatin' on folks?

[Wags]

Black Landlord wrote:
OK, so yeah, McCain his a poor record of showing up to do his job; you probably would too if your war injuries were as serious as his. I think senators deserve sick days like everyone else.
The thing I wonder about, though-- his job basically entails carrying out the wishes of his consituents-- is it not possible that he personally is a champion of "clean energy" but is forced to vote according to what his constituency wants?
Don't you guys ever get tired of hatin' on folks?

I can't tell if you're being ironic here or not, but since Arizona has enough solar capacity to power the entire country I wonder which part of his constituency he's "serving"?

[Black Landlord]

Wags wrote:
but since Arizona has enough solar capacity to power the entire country

That might be true if you could just place an electronic device out in the sun and power it, but the unfortunate reality is that the technology to harness the sun's energy is not up to the job-- the energy and resources needed to create solar panels result in a negligible payoff presently, to the point that solar power could barely even be called "clean".

[Wags]

Black Landlord wrote:
[quote=Wags]
but since Arizona has enough solar capacity to power the entire country

That might be true if you could just place an electronic device out in the sun and power it, but the unfortunate reality is that the technology to harness the sun's energy is not up to the job-- the energy and resources needed to create solar panels result in a negligible payoff presently, to the point that solar power could barely even be called "clean".
Exactly the point - capacity = potential. McCain is proposing tax subsidies to big oil that amount to 39 Billion dollars over the next 5 years. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/true_cost.html This, as we lag behind our international competitors who already are moving in the direction of what will be the future for energy, while we continue to whip a dying horse.

Wonder how far that might go toward developing better solar capacity and other clean/renewable power sources (or, heaven forbid, conservation)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation

[Black Landlord]

Wags wrote:
(or, heaven forbid, conservation)?

This is one of my frustrations with Obama. If anyone could make an eloquent case for changing our habits and behavior towards the goal of using less energy, and frame it in a way that doesn't hurt his electability, it's him, but he has not dared to try.
I feel like I've heard conservation suggested by republicans more than democrats over the last few years.

[davester]

Black Landlord wrote:
...the unfortunate reality is that the technology to harness the sun's energy is not up to the job-- the energy and resources needed to create solar panels result in a negligible payoff presently, to the point that solar power could barely even be called "clean".

That is not correct. Only if the energy payback exceeds 20 to 30 years (typical warranteed lifetime of a photovoltaic panel...actual lifetimes are much greater) can a photovoltaic technology be considered "nonrenewable". A decade ago the energy payback period for a photovoltaic panel was 10 years...a long time, but still very much on the plus side of the nonrenewable/renewable equation. The energy payback period for new crystalline panels is typically better than 3 years and for thin film panels it is typically less than 1 year.

...and this doesn't even consider the fact that there are other technologies (i.e. various solar thermal technologies) that are more efficient than photovoltaic.

This info can be gotten from many places. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltai...y_Invested

[Wags]

Black Landlord wrote:
[quote=Wags]
(or, heaven forbid, conservation)?

This is one of my frustrations with Obama. If anyone could make an eloquent case for changing our habits and behavior towards the goal of using less energy, and frame it in a way that doesn't hurt his electability, it's him, but he has not dared to try.
I feel like I've heard conservation suggested by republicans more than democrats over the last few years.
Agreed. I feel like Obama's begun to pander to the lowest common denominator, alas, and deal too much in feel good generalizations, rather than in adequately elucidated policy statements. It may be a necessary realpolitik strategy, since the Dem's have had their butts handed to them by Rove, etal in the last two presidential elections. Once again its the choice of the lesser of two less than desirable options. Both party candidates are corporate shills, but McCain, IMHO is much more so. That said, I think Obama holds considerably more hope for a substantive policy shift.

[OWC Jamie]

Let's fire the top ten offenders.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr...e-missers/

Oh wait, we'd have a woman for President.
Can't have that [/sexist sarcasm]

Edit: If you don't like the Washington Post, you can always go to the source, but it has been getting hammered lately, probably by fact checkers.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=votes

[Wags]

billb wrote:
Let's fire the top ten offenders.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congr...e-missers/

Oh wait, we'd have a woman for President.
Can't have that [/sexist sarcasm]

Edit: If you don't like the Washington Post, you can always go to the source, but it has been getting hammered lately, probably by fact checkers.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=votes

Interesting info, glad to see my senator, Wyden, takes his job seriously. This has no bearing what ever on the topic. Nice try at a hijack, though.