Wind Power Puffery

 

Email To A Friend

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

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

We asked the McCain campaign for clarification and whether the candidate
had proposed any new federal spending for renewable energy (none is
included in his plan). We got this statement:

McCain camp statement: John McCain has proposed to make sense out of our support for renewable energy sources. For too long, the temporary tax credits for renewable energy sources has more closely reflected the power of each source's respective lobbyist, rather than its need or market viability. John McCain has proposed establishing a regime of federal support that will remain predictable and remain in place until an energy source can stand on its own in our market. Further, John McCain has committed to a generous and reformed R&D tax credit to spur innovation across industries, including the energy sector.

That sounds like McCain supports long-term tax credits, something renewable energy advocates would welcome, though it's not something he has supported in the past – even the very recent past. The federal investment tax credit, which provides incentives to businesses and individuals to invest in renewable energy, is set to expire at the end of the year. Renewable energy groups have lobbied for passage of Senate measures that would have extended the credit for eight years, but the legislation has been blocked eight times by Republicans who object to other tax increases that would cover the cost of the credits. McCain, and Obama, missed the most recent vote on such legislation.

McCain's statements on "rationaliz[ing] the current patchwork" and establishing "a regime of federal support that will remain predictable" don't offer enough detail for renewable energy advocates to say what his proposals would accomplish. Sara Birmingham, director of western U.S. policy at the Solar Alliance, a state-based advocacy group of solar industry companies, told us: "We absolutely like longer predictability," but she couldn't really say how the group felt about McCain's proposal "until we actually see what he has in mind."

Monique Hanis, director of communications for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said: "He really needs to fill in with specifics like what energy sources should be stimulated, what are his goals, what mix would he want to see by what timeframe."

McCain's vague pronouncements about renewable energy are overshadowed by his very specific proposals for nuclear plants, offshore drilling and a push to develop "clean coal" capabilities. Hanis, who couldn't hide her unhappiness for such a focus even in an e-mail, told us, "that seems like a patchwork."

In the past, McCain has not supported subsidies for renewable energy, or much else. In May, according to the Wall Street Journal, he said he was "wary" of government subsidies but that he supported federal help for nuclear power. Hanis also notes that his voting record doesn't show support for credits, either. The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a 0 percent rating on its environmental scorecard for 2007 – he missed all the votes – and a 24 percent lifetime rating.

Obama's Version
Obama offers much more specific language and goals regarding renewable energy in his plan. The proposal rests on spending $150 billion over 10 years for alternative and renewable energy efforts, including promoting "development of commercial scale renewable energy." He also says he'll require that 25 percent of electricity used in the U.S. comes from sustainable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal by 2025. (Whether that's achievable remains to be seen: The Dept. of Energy says wind could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030.)

And while the McCain camp didn't mention this in its back-up material for the ad, we also note that McCain supports a cap-and-trade program that would limit companies' greenhouse gas emissions. Such a plan could encourage corporations to invest in renewable energy by making the burning of coal, natural gas or petroleum more expensive. Obama also proposes a cap-and-trade program in a different form. Depending on the details, such plans should cause companies to shift to renewable or alternative energy sources by raising the cost of carbon-emitting energies.

Both candidates have taken to criticizing the other for having no real energy plan. The charges are false. Both candidates have released comprehensive plans.  Obama'sproposal and McCain's are available on their Web sites.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 

A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.