There are plenty of good reasons to oppose McCain. His position on climate change isn't one of them. I wish his targets were tougher, but McCain is stepping out further on climate change than most Republicans and a lot of Democrats.

We've seen this tactic before.  It's called "hugging'em on the issues."  

Here's the classic example from the Bush/Gore debate:

LEHRER:  What about global warming?

BUSH: I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I
don't think we know the solution to global warming yet and I don't
think we've got all the facts before we make decisions. I'll tell you
one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the United
States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air, like the
Kyoto treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that
treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed as, evidently 99
senators -- I think it was 99 senators -- supported that position.

LEHRER: Global warming, global warming. The Senate did turn it down.

BUSH:  Ninety-nine to nothing.

GORE: I think that, well that vote wasn't exactly, a lot of supporters
of the Kyoto treaty actually ended up voting for that because of the
way it was worded, but there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to
it in the Senate. I'm not for command and control techniques either.
I'm for working with the groups, not just with industry but also with
the citizens groups and local communities to control sprawl in ways
that the local communities themselves come up with. But I disagree
that we don't know the cause of global warming. I think that we do.
It's pollution, carbon dioxide and other chemicals that are even more
potent, but in smaller quantities that cause this.

Look, the world's temperatures going up, weather patterns are
changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. And what
are we going to tell our children? And I'm a grandfather now. I want
to be able to tell my grandson when I'm in my later years that I
didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some
serious harm. In my faith tradition, it's written in the Book of
Matthew, where your heart is, there is your treasure also. And I
believe that we ought to recognize the value to our children and
grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way
that's good for them.

BUSH: Yeah, I agree. I just, I think there's been some -- some of the
scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing
their opinion a little bit on global warming? .... Look, global
warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But
science -- there's differing opinions and before we react I think it's
best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking
place. And I think to answer your question, I think both of us care a
lot about the environment. We may have different approaches. We may
have different approaches in terms of how we deal with local folks. I
mean, I just cited an example of the administration just unilaterally
acting without any input. And I remember you gave a very good answer
in New Hampshire about the White Mountains, about how it was important
to keep that collaborative effort in place. I feel very strongly the
same place -- it certainly wasn't the attitude that took place out
west, however.

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/20...

I'm not prepared at this point to give any Republican the benefit of the doubt on environmental issues.

Bottom line is that the U.S. can do little about its share of the global warming problem while the Iraq occupation drags on.

your last sentence. The way I see it, the Iraq fiasco makes it even MORE urgent that we get off of our "oil addiction" ASAP.  Also, what we need to do to deal with global warming will help our nation's economy and infrastructure, constituting a major net positive, completely independent of any other considerations.

What I meant was that as long as we are spending huge amounts of borrowed money to fund the Iraq occupation, there's not going to be any money for a serious effort to do anything about global warming.  My assumption, I guess, is that there has to be massive government involvement, government funded R&D, and government funding of pollution control devices at least in the form of tax credits.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  I suppose that regardless of what goes on in Iraq, something meaningful could be done about global warming, e.g., raise the CAFE to 50 m.p.g.  However, it always comes down to somebody saying, "how are we going to pay for that?"  

government spending. In fact, it could result in large revenues to the federal government.  The Center for American Progress has some good information on this:

Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be "recycled" back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs.

Brilliant; let's do it!

From the Sierra Club...

GLOBAL WARMING POLICY THAT WORKS:
CAP-AND-AUCTION

The United States must begin to curb its greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous impacts of global warming and contain the high costs of inaction. The scientific community warns that allowing global temperatures to rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels could lead to irreversible changes to the planet. To prevent this, we need to act fast, but we also need to ensure that the policy we set is effective and sustainable. In addition to bold energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, a well-designed carbon cap is essential to guaranteeing greenhouse gas emissions reductions.  A system that allows trading of pollution allowances under a cap currently has the greatest political support.  The structures and safeguards built into that system will determine whether or not it will work.

By crafting a global warming policy that meets science-based goals, puts a price on greenhouse gas pollution and proactively invests in projects and programs for the public interest, we can solve global warming while invigorating a clean energy economy and protecting working families and vulnerable groups of people around the world.

U.S. global warming policy must:

1. Set Science-Based Timetables: The emissions reduction targets and timetables of any economy-wide global warming legislation must meet scientific demands for effectively curbing global warming to prevent its most dangerous impacts --, rising sea levels, increased resource depletion and competition, drought and the spread of disease. For the U.S., this will require reducing total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020 from 2005 levels and at least 80% by 2050 from 1990 levels. The U.S. should establish a firm and enforceable declining cap consistent with meeting these targets.

2. Auction Emissions Permits:   In a cap-and-trade system, all emissions permits should be auctioned or directed toward public purposes, rather than given away for free. The proceeds of auctions are a public resource and should be spent to achieve the highest public good, not generate windfall profits or other benefits for politically powerful energy companies. The term "cap-and-auction" emphasizes the importance of auctioning emission permits for public purposes.

3. Pursue the Cleanest, Safest, Fastest, and Cheapest Solutions First: Revenue raised by auctioning emissions permits should be invested in the highest-value solutions for emissions reductions first.  Increasing energy efficiency in homes, commercial buildings and vehicles is the fastest, cleanest, cheapest and safest way to reduce our energy use, our energy bills, and America's greenhouse gas emissions. Clean, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and biomass should be deployed to meet our remaining energy needs. Energy efficiency and renewable energy projects have the potential of generating hundreds of thousands of family-supporting jobs particularly in regions suffering from recent losses in the manufacturing sector.

4. Establish Mechanisms to Support Workers, Protect Vulnerable Groups, and Induce World Action: Auction revenue should be distributed to create new clean energy jobs, revitalize and retain jobs in existing industries, and ensure fair treatment for affected workers and their communities. Auction revenue should go to assist low- and moderate-income households with rising energy costs and other economic impacts and provide adaptation assistance to communities in the U.S and vulnerable nations around the world.  

The U.S. should enact policies and provide incentives that encourage other countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions, including providing auction revenue to promote international technology transfer. Also, to prevent driving the U.S.'s energy intensive industry out of the country, climate border adjustment mechanisms should ensure that imported products reflect the same environmental costs as products produced under domestic climate policy. This would reduce the economic incentive for companies to move and increase the incentive for companies to start reducing emissions wherever they are in the world.

A cap and trade program isn't expected to be cost-free.
http://budget.edgeboss.net/wme...

McCain wants to continue the Iraq occupation, do something about global warming and continue the Bush tax cuts. But we can only have one of those three, in my opinion.

While McCain has said some reasonable things about the environment (better than Dubya, far less than what we need), he's yet to really put his money where his mouth is.  Talk is cheap, and even cheaper in politics, and his current poor rating by the LCV and frequent capitulations to the Dubya administration (i.e. drilling in Alaska) speak volumes more about his real position than his cheap words.

When he says he will not "shirk the mantle of leadership", what is he saying?  That as President he won't shirk it, but as a lowly Senator he can shirk away?  Or perhaps as a Senator he has no leadership role?  Or maybe he can only do the responsible thing if he's the top boss?

I'm sorry, we need a real leader in this War on Global Warming, not just some double talking airbag who seems to be running on a "At least I'm better than Dubya" platform.  

You lose your conservative denier base and you still get called a "double talking airbag" by the left. Pretty big disincentive for any Republican to ever come out for climate action.  

I'm calling out McCain for his own BS.  

If he had actually stood up for the environment with all his past actions I wouldn't be tough on him.  While I generally disagree with Republicans, I can and will certainly give them credit when it's due.  McCain is better than Dubya - I'll give him that.  However, he's talking shit if he's saying that he'll be a leader in this battle.  He's had plenty of chances to lead and failed plenty of times.  His failures and weaknesses far outstrip his successes in this area.

Give me a Republican who walks the walk and I'll give him/her their proper praise.  McCain is so much more talk than action and deserves no such praise.

This won't win me any friends here but I had to respond.

Obama fits that bill even more than McCain does

Check out Obamas vote in the 2005 energy bill for example

Obama is all talk and hope with no action on numerous issues

I know 99% of you won't be voting for McCain, I can't defend all of the points you guys will be making but cmon now  

There seems to have been a rash of these posts theat reference missed votes, or in this case "key votes" in Congress regarding cetain issues. We all must determine to end this kind of rhetoric unless we feel integrity based to include the whole story with regard to all of these Senators. There was no mention of the actual bill number and McCain's voting record on the environment certainly has not been anything to cheer about to be sure, but then either was John Warners for years until the light bulb went off recently.
The point is Barrack Obama for whatever reason chose to miss countless votes last fall, as did Clinton and McCain. My hoped had been at Obama recent sit down with Russert that some of these issues would be covered to get Obama on record but alas--all for not unless of course you see Rev. Wright as a policy matter- I certainly do not.
The issues that also should have been correlated in an honest evaluation of the environmental arena is while McCain missed votes, we can dispute the "key" aspect at some point, but Obama managed to get to where he is without much of a debate within the Party regarding the following "NV" Not Voting on the Environment:

a few here:
Offshore Drilling in Virginia 6/14/07  (Are you kidding me)
Water Resources Act 2007 11/08/07
Government Sponsored Farming Ins. Policies HR2419 12/11/07
Energy Act of 2007 12/13/07  (another are you kidding me momment) HR6
Farm Nutrition Biomedical Act 2007

I am all for holding everyone accountable, not just those in the opposition, with regard to the environmental debate and other policy issues but I think the issues need to be addressed by a media more inclined to seek to inform than be shilled by the campaigns. Fact is no one is asking these frontrunners the hard, cold questions on such issues as these and those of us who say we deeply care about these agendas and policies should be the most outraged at
the lack of voting on the record and not in the media or out on the campaign trail and yet there seems little expression for the lack of substance of positions we are actually getting these days.

If the only record you have are soundbites and not actual votes on the record, how are people to be truly informed as to make a determination in this race. Are we simply just to take it on faith that either of these guys will do what they say. Somehow, the "straight-talk" isn't so straight anymore and the "yes we can-change" without actual substance is growing tiresome. Its no wonder people are tuning out and not in now.

I look for to the Presidential debates when hopefully things like the environment can actually be debated for a change to move things forward.