Wind Power Puffery

McCain's new ad touts 'renewable energy,' but his energy plan offers little to support it.

Aug 8, 2008 | Updated: 3:25 p.m. ET Aug 8, 2008

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Summary
A McCain ad shows pictures of wind-driven turbines while the narrator says: "Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain." But, in fact, his energy plan doesn't specify any new federal spending for renewable energy and says only that he'd "rationalize" existing tax credits to provide incentives. In the past, however, he's opposed extending such tax credits when paid for by tax increases elsewhere.

The ad also insinuates that Obama would bring "higher taxes" for "your family," another in what has become a pattern of misrepresentations of Obama's tax plan. Obama actually proposes to cut taxes for all but the most affluent families. He wants to restore tax rates to pre-Bush levels only for those making over $250,000 a year.

Analysis
The battle of the energy ads continues: John McCain's campaign released its latest spot Aug. 6, criticizing Barack Obama for his stance on the Bush tax cuts and highlighting McCain's plans for "renewable energy." The ad will run in "key states," according to the campaign.

John McCain 2008 Ad: "Family"
Announcer: Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to help your family?

The real Obama promises higher taxes, more government spending. So, fewer jobs.

Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.

Support, But No Specifics
The ad says: "Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain."

But McCain's energy plan doesn't say a whole lot about "renewable energy." His ads, including this one, have featured images of wind turbines, which, like solar, hydropower or biomass projects, tap energy sources that will never run out. But McCain's energy plan and statements about such renewables are vague and left to interpretation. He's offered more specifics, and federal dollars, for nuclear power and "clean coal" technologies. The back-up the campaign provided with the ad includes this comment from McCain on an "international green economy":

McCain press release, June 25: Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future. There is no reason that the U.S. should not be a leader in developing and deploying these new technologies.

Beyond that, the campaign points to McCain's commitment of $2 billion in annual funding for "clean coal" technology and his goal of building 45 new nuclear plants by 2030. Coal – even if it's "clean" – isn't a renewable energy source. Ditto for nuclear. McCain also wants to create a permanent research and development tax credit equal to 10 percent of wages spent on R&D for all industries. As for wind, hydro and solar power specifically, McCain hints that some tax credits might be provided, or extended, or something:

McCain's "Lexington Project" energy plan: To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.

We're not sure what "rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits" means. And neither are wind or solar industry spokespeople. "I don't even know what that means," Frank Maisano, a spokesman for energy companies including utilities and wind, told us when we read that line from McCain's plan. "It means that they don't want to tell people what that means."

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Bigsmith @ 08/20/2008 2:31:43 PM

Is it true that the French dispose of their nuclear wastes by sending them to Russia?
Will Russia accept ours? If it's not free, we may spend as much to dispose of our energy waste as we currently do to buy oil.
tintaluz@prtc.net
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 08/17/2008 10:46:14 AM

Why is there such an ingrained irrational paranoia about nuclear energy and waste disposal among some Americans. Importantly also why is somehow okay for millions of Navy sailors to have served for nearly forty years aboard nuclear power American aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines and air force personnel to handle nuclear bombs but some Americans will not consider even remotely assume any risks involved with nuclear power. It is okay for our servicemen to be exposed to alleged risks but not Democrats who oppose nuclear power. This paranoia is particular evident with the Democratic people acceptance of risks that are associated with other aspects of modern American living. Forty thousand people die every year in the United States in auto accidents but there is no outcry to ban all automobiles in the United
States. Bridges have collapsed recently in Minnesota and tunnels ceilings have fallen but there is no consensus on eliminating bridges. There have been airplane crashes that have also involved injuries on the ground but there is no outcry to ban air travel. There have been repeated rail and ship accidents but no outcry to ban railroads or ship travel. The irrational fear involving nuclear power and waste disposal has no justification. American people undergo multiple medical and dental xrays and CT scans yearly and have no fear. TSA airport screeners and medical staff work daily around xray equipment, fluoroscopes, and CT machines and do not experience adverse health consequences as a result of their work exposure. There were no documented adverse health events associated with the Three Mile Island release of minor radiation in the 1970???s and no payments for health losses were ever made involving lawsuits related to that accident. The containment vessel held at Three Mile Island. In light of most Americans acceptance of risks associated with automobiles, trains, planes, and ships, the fear on the part of some Americans of nuclear power can not be viewed as rational. John McCain's proposals to build 45 new nuclear power plants along with his other energy proposals on conservation and renewable energy will help America achieve relative energy independence in the near term and long term.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Davole @ 08/14/2008 10:53:14 AM

Affordable Energy is not a Zero Sum Game
The Hill by Ohio GOP Rep. Steve Chabot Aug. 13, 2008

The debate on energy has reached a tipping point. For months, calls to allow a vote on domestic drilling have been stonewalled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but yesterday she conceded that the House ???can have a vote.???

The clear temptation is to vilify the Speaker for ignoring the will of the American constituency for so long; however, the focus should now be on the future of our energy policy, not on partisan politics.

The search for sustainable energy sources should not be a zero sum game. What we have are realistic and substantive proposals available for debate that emphasize both alternative sources like wind and solar, as well as environmentally responsible approaches to increasing domestic oil and gas production. What we need is for the Speaker to call Congress back from vacation to show her party is willing to admit that the status quo and proper tire pressure are insufficient for an energy policy.

Today I joined House Republicans on the floor for the informal session we???ve been holding since Congress adjourned almost two weeks ago. While some have derided our actions as a stunt, they seem to have brought about a change in the tide. Oil and gas are still critical to American families and our economy, and the time has come for Congress to deliver solutions.

America???s energy security is a bipartisan matter. Let???s get something done.