Knights Of The Planet Gore

National Review: McCain And Obama Are Both Global-Warming Alarmists

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Henry Payne.

---

The presidential fuel follies came careening into Michigan this week, advertising two knights battling over America’s energy future. Upon closer inspection, however, the fix appears to be in: Underneath the rhetorical weaponry, both knights are wearing the same green armor.

Barack Obama arrived first at Michigan State to give a typically grandiose speech outlining his plan for a “complete transformation of our economy.” The Arrogant One has been trying to make up to Michigan since he presumed a year ago to tell her how to make cars (a come-on that went over like a lead balloon) and then blew off her January Democratic primary. Since then, Obama has paid visits laden with armfuls of bouquets and soothing pander.

The Democratic nominee-in-waiting arrived for his speech outlining our post-oil, post-SUV future in three gigantic, gas-guzzling SUVs. Then - taking a cue from Al Gore - Obama mounted the stage to declare a ten-year goal of ending our “addiction to oil” ... or at least the oil from “the entire Middle East and Venezuela” (he also declared an end to war, and to human aging).

He said he would “not pretend we can achieve (his goal) without cost, or without sacrifice.” And then he pretended that we could, promising that his “new energy economy . . . will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs. Jobs that pay well. Jobs that can’t be outsourced. Good, union jobs.”

The centerpiece of this new Obamatopia was his prediction that “we will get one million, 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in (electric) hybrids on our roads within six years.” Or approximately seven percent of new car sales. To put this “prediction” in perspective, consider that:

In 2001, Toyota and Honda introduced the first gas-electric hybrid models (the Prius and Insight). Seven years later, there are 16 hybrids on the market accounting for just 3 percent of all vehicle sales. “That’s a real stretch,” said David Cole, director of Michigan’s Center for Automotive Research (CAR), upon learning of Obama’s forecast.

A plug-in car is not yet in production. GM and Toyota are both targeting 2010 for their market debuts, but both companies are struggling with the lithium-ion technology at the heart of those battery-powered vehicles.

Even assuming Obama’s omniscience, an electricity-based market growing that fast will put increasing strains on the U.S. power grid. Yet, in his MSU speech, Obama also called on the “American people to meet the goal of reducing our demand for electricity 15 percent by the end of the next decade.” Considering that the federal Energy Information Agency predicts an 18 percent increase in electricity consumption during that time - even before you add on electric car demand - it’s hard to see how Obama squares his circle.

That was just the beginning. Obama brought a Christmas bag of goodies to Michigan. To purchase all those new plug-in vehicles that don’t yet exist, Obama promised a $7,000 federal tax credit - more than doubling the current federal subsidy. And he promised that they would be built “right here in the state of Michigan,” which begs the question of whether the $7,000 credit would be limited to American vehicles (currently, the $3,000 credit goes mostly to Toyota Priuses made in Japan, the status symbol of American liberals).

He promised $4 billion in guaranteed loans for U.S. auto companies, which sounded impressive until CAR’s Cole reminded a Detroit News reporter that General Motors just lost $15 billion in the second quarter alone.

Perhaps most intriguing was Obama’s proposed wealth transfer from one fossil-fuel giant to another: Big Oil to Big Auto. Obama ripped into Exxon-Mobil for making “the largest profit in the history of the United States. This is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon.”

As punishment Obama proposes a windfall profit tax on Big Oil that will, in part, go to “helping the auto industry re-tool.” Heaven forbid that General Motors ever turn a profit again.

Obama’s comprehensive energy prescription was in part a response to the beating he’s been taking from McCain on the issue, with the Arizona senator ridiculing his opponent for opposing offshore drilling and touting tire-pressure checks as a fuel-saving measure.

Arriving in Michigan one day after Obama, John McCain and his supporters were determined to stay on the offensive. Though McCain made no public appearances, his visit to Detroit Edison’s Fermi nuclear plant south of Detroit was a dramatic statement that he sees nuclear as a realistic solution to America’s energy needs. An editorial in my newspaper, the Detroit News, pointed to Michigan polls that “support the Arizona Republican's positions calling for the building of 45 new nuclear power plants and allowing oil drilling off of the nation's coasts.”

Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis hammered Obama for his insistence on auto job-killing, mandated fuel-mileage standards (so-called CAFE laws). "That shows how out of touch he is with Michigan voters," thundered Anuzis. "He's pandering to San Francisco liberals and environmentalists who would just as soon we not have cars."

Yet, those words of support only highlight McCain’s similarities to Obama. On CAFE, for example, McCain himself has been no friend to the auto industry. In 2002, he co-sponsored a bill with John Kerry hiking mileage mandates by 30 percent - a proposal that ultimately became law last year over loud Big 3 protests. On drilling, McCain quickly steps on his message of “oil independence” by opposing drilling in ANWR - just as his opponent does.

As for nuclear power, McCain’s strategy has serious flaws - beginning with the fact that the candidate doesn’t seem to know the difference between electricity and motor fuel. As the Detroit Free Press reported, McCain “believes that adding 45 nuclear reactors in the United States will help reduce dependence on foreign oil.” But nuclear energy is used for powering homes, not cars. Fuel oil, even if it were replaced by more nukes, makes up just 1.6 percent of U.S. electricity generation.

Furthermore, nukes have become expensive to build, in part due to onerous regulation by McCain’s Senate colleagues (as well as other factors). While constructing a new coal plant costs about $1,500 per kW, a new nuclear plant will cost anywhere from $4,000 to $6,000 per kW (though, once built, nuclear is the cheapest source of electricity generation). As a result, the only way to construct nuke plants is with massive federal subsidies or the re-regulation of utilities (Detroit Edison will only build another reactor if Michigan guarantees restoration of its monopoly status). Aren’t those Democratic solutions to energy policy?

Upon arrival in Michigan, McCain’s traveling companion, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) pointed out that France gets 80 percent of its energy from nukes. Said Graham: "My message here today is that we should take our lead from the French. I never thought I'd say that." There was more irony than Graham probably wanted: A Republican was praising a French government that had nationalized its utilities under one company and then mandated that it build nuclear power.

Ultimately, McCain’s soft-spot for nuclear is because it’s not coal: America’s most abundant - and cheapest - energy resource. It is an aversion that McCain shares with Senator Obama, because both candidates are, at root, global-warming alarmists.

And global warming alarmism is not good for the state that they are wooing.

Unmentioned in the media coverage of sparring energy plans is that both candidates are ardent supporters of federal cap-and-trade laws. Writing for the Mackinac Center, a Michigan think tank, author Deneen Borelli reports that “the economic cost of a cap-and-trade bill would hit Michigan especially hard. The increase in energy costs would compound the loss of manufacturing jobs in the state and reduce the disposable income of Michigan residents.”

An American Council for Capital Formation study of this year’s Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill found that "Michigan would lose 37,400 to 56,260 jobs in 2020 and 91,490 to 121,786 jobs in 2030” and electricity prices would increase by 126 percent to 177 percent.

Obama and McCain are fighting for the affection of industrial states like Michigan, each touting their own government plan to put America on the proper green-energy course. But the closer one looks at their handsome gifts, the more they look like Trojan horses hiding armies of government regulation.

[ubrew12]

I believe the planet is nearing a tipping point. Arctic warming and melting will, sooner or later, lead to massive releases of methane gas that''s been locked up in permafrost for thousands of years. Researchers have already seen this occurring in the arctic, and global methane concentrations are now trending upward significantly. There''s enough methane locked in arctic permafrost to pretty much destroy our biosphere: mass extinction, not just an inconvenient impact on our economy.

If you don''t believe the Arctic is melting, why is the polar bear now classified as endangered of extinction? Polar bears natural habitat is arctic ice. How long does it take to evolve a polar bear anyway? Thats how long its been since the arctic was THIS screwed up (otherwise they would have gone extinct before now).

Think about it.

[irliberal]

The neocons are in stark denial. The evidence that the Bush administration has been a total and complete catastrophe is all around them but they deny that. They deny the economy has been severely damaged. They deny global warming. They deny, deny, deny.

But will they win the presidential election in November?

DENIED!

Time for a change.

[jon2012-2009]

I also accept pretty much the view that climate change will bring catastrophic disasters on the ecology of the planet with damaging impact on our survival as a result of increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. I''m no scientist but I trust my understanding of science as a tool to predict changes that occur gradually over time in scales too large to permit a definitive result from an early sampling.

For good or bad, we''ll start to see some of the more severe changes within 30 years. This isn''t like waiting for a Messiah. We are monitoring the planet''s temperature and level of greenhouse gases and we even have a number to focus our efforts on: 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Are our scientists being alarmists? Unfortunately, as a layman, I have no choice but to accept their findings. Not to do so would be reckless beyond words.

[ksjeff-2009]

Leave it up to the neocons at the National Review to criticize, but offer no competing plan.

At least Obama (and even misguided McCain) are trying to address an issue that is the greatest threat to our national security in generations ~ our dependance on foreign oil.

The editors of the National Review are dinosaurs, just like the old, white-haired men in the US Senate.

It''s time for new leadership, and for a future of energy independance.

[tranq4]

I have an idea, let''s put our heads in the sand and pretend that the best way to avoid the precipice we''re quickly approaching is to not change at all. The animals that continue to thrive in this world are the ones that adapt to change. Conservatives are no such animal - at least on this topic. Our bad situation is getting worse - and denying it hasn''t helped (we gave that a try these past 8 years).

Think about it.

[wogerwabbit]

I actually think the simple minded neocons at NRO think the world is flat.

[greeneyes222]

I wonder if I would like Obama more if I didn''t read what his idiot supporters write?

[newview08]

I bet neither of them gets to these speeches in electric cars, Phonies.

[newview08]

I love these people who look at the world like it''s one big museum, trying to fence off everything for their personal enjoyment and charging admission to "manage" it in the name of science. What a joke. As if one little thing changes, and it''s ruined for all time. These cornballs live in complete denial of just how brutal and resilient the natural world really is. It will survive us, you can bank on it. There%u2019s absolutely nothing we can do to change it permanently, we%u2019re just along for the ride.

[jimfinster]

I was taught in college that man can neither create or change matter so like it or not we are at the mercy of nature.

Posted by dmw1167



Ever been in a tornado or hurricane, fool?

[jimfinster]

Lots of denial posters here.

Ignorance can be cured with education, but stupid is forever.

[ubrew12]

dmw1167 said: "It is amazing that people take what one group of scientists say and completely ignore the group that disagrees with that view."

A recent study examined every article on climate change published in scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.

Now consider the popular media''s reporting on climate change: One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than HALF of the articles discussing climate change gave EQUAL WEIGHT to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics.

There is no disagreement among climatologists about climate change. Its happening, its human caused, its going to get worse and, in my point of view, its time to start taking names so we know who to lynch if/when the sh*t hits the fan.

[ubrew12]

Well, OK, not ''lynch'' but, uh, ''boo!''

[kaylag04]

The term "Scientific Consensus" indicates the power of repetition in creating acceptance of a term or concept that does not exist. It also demonstrates that people can graduate from 12 years of alleged education with the belief that the sytematic testing of hypothesis is somehow vetted through some democratic negotiation process to arrive at "consensus".

[carlylaine]

Obama wants punitive arrangements with big oil because they make too much money? Isn''t this what capitalism is all about?

And here comes the MESSIAH Obama...the man who will not lower the gas prices IF or when he becomes president, or even try to fix the oil problem now. He will not drill off-shore, he will not urge Congress to look into ways of lowering the prices because? Because he wants to CHANGE the color of the United States. He is hell-bent to destroy the United States with his lofty arrogant ideas on SOCIALISM.

Obama wants to keep the poor very poor and the middle class poor. Do you think that taxing the RICH will include him and his ilk? What do you think will happen if the RICH are taxed more?

Most of you are looking at his color-which is RACIST, and his ideas so YOU WON''T HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING because the government will just pay you to sleep and laze around for the rest of your lives. H*E*L*L, the poor can get lazier. WE ARE CAPITALISTS in spite of the fact that the LIBS want us all to go to the wayside just like RUSSIA and any of the countries that have embraced SOCIALISM. I can think of one country where it has sort-of worked and we just don''t hear that much about Sweden unless you GOOGLE it...then there''s lots of information. READ IT.

I do fully understand that some of our ways of life is from the SOCIALISTIC agenda.. Obviously, some socialism is good. BUT NOT A PURE SOCIALISTIC COUNTRY and CAPITALISM is good too, but not in total.

[wogerwabbit]

Posted by CarlyLaine at 06:15 AM

What the hell are you babbling about?

[aakalan]

More idiot arguments, pressed using insults instead of logic. More apologies for the rape of the American public, more excuses for polluting the planet and enriching the Sheiks of the Middle East.

These guys are hopeless dunderheads whose only goal is the enrichment of the super-rich and the death of as many people who are "not like us" as possible.

This magazine and its writers constitute a crime against humanity.

[jimfinster]

Al Gore arrives in a limo and keeps it running for 20 minutes while he is inside so it will be cool for his group, he flys private jets, he uses enough electricity for over 200 normal homes and he wants you to walk, ride a bike or buy a bus ticket. He is a huge fraud that is rivaled only by the Clintons and "Love Child" Edwards! Do the democrats only put up frauds for office. H, why are they any different from republicans. Answer, they are politicians and totally corrupt in their entirety!

Posted by linymo


If you have some legitimate scientific points to make, by all means do so. By only posting personal attacks, you indicate you have no such argument.

Your post is a combination of a strawman argument and ad hominem attack.

[eggy1620]

It%u2019s been said that we need a Manhattan Project type effort to solve our energy problem. Well if WWII were happening now, we%u2019d all be drinking sake because nothing like that project would get off the ground. Some group would stop progress on behalf the desert toad and roadrunner. Joe Blow%u2019s unrestricted access to civil courts ensures that progress will never again be accomplished like it was before the 1960%u2019s. So get used to your standard of living going down the toilet.

[noloyalisti]

Yeah, just keep denying global warming to suck up to your fascist Exxon and Chevron masters.

It does not matter what is causing it, you right wing fools, we still have to deal with it. Typical, whatever the wing nuts want to believe is what the truth is.

[rkimball3]

i smell a rat. i smell a big rat in the form of one big,fat,giant,global warming tax hike.

[ausus-2009]

Those who predict doom often quote scientists who quote from computer models. When it comes to actual predictions, these scientists come up short. After Katrina, it was predicted we would have stronger and more frequent hurricanes. In fact, since then hurricanes have been below the long term average. It was predicted three years ago that warmer waters would kill Australia''s Great Barrier Reef within three years. Since then the water temperature has been below the long term average. New Zealand is having a record cold winter. Australia is having another great snow season despite predictions they would no longer happen. The west coast of the US is having a below normal temperature year. Looking further afield, EVERY continent on earth has recorded its all time low since it recorded its all-time high. For every bit of so-called evidence of global warming, there can be found contrary information.

If we take the predictors of doom seriously, America will have double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and watch the rest of its major manufacturing industry be transferred to Mexico, China and India.

[eggy1620]

Posted by ausus

There is no stopping the avalanche of cash going into green technologies. And as the trends you noted in your post continue, full credit will go towards green tech without rigorous analysis of the causes and effects, and more money will flow.