McCain doesn't seem to favor any changes in federal policy that would lead to reduced carbon emissions. He has no proposals to reduce driving and no proposals to increase energy efficiency. What's more, he opposes subsidies to clean sources of electricity. This last he nominally does on the conservative grounds that we shouldn't be interfering with the normal operation of the market. That seems like a plausible view to take, except McCain isn't opposed to nuclear subsidies. Indeed, he very strongly favors them. Favors them, Dave Roberts points out, to the extent that he said he would vote against the most moderate cap-and-trade plan in the congress on the grounds that it doesn't include sufficient subsidies for nuclear power.
That's the kind of position you would expect a lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry to take -- not someone who's serious about reducing carbon emissions. Anything that puts a price on carbon, whether or not in includes explicit subsidies, will be good for the nuclear energy industry. And if additional subsidies on top of that are the price it takes to convince unprincipled Senators -- like, apparently, John McCain -- to vote for an overall good bill then that's a price worth paying. But on the merits the McCain position, "yes to cap-and-trade if and only if it contains large subsidies for nuclear power" verges on the insane.
This is really, really simple. If you want cap-and-trade to be anything more than a give away to the energy industry, you have to auction off all of the permits. What you do with the money raised in the auction (i.e. what you then choose to subsidize) is of course then up for debate, but if you are serious about using the program to reduce carbon emissions, the auction must be total and complete. Everyone who has studied this - right, left, center - understands and agrees on this point. McCain apparently hasn't studied the subject, and it shows both in the policies he has proposed and the ways he talks about them.
McCain says he is against "interfering" in the market, except when he is for it. He says we ought to avoiding "distorting the market," except when he is for it. And he says that we ought to favor less government involvement whenever possible, except as his own proposals show, that's often not possible. The question isn't if government should act, but how and when.
Dave Roberts at Grist explains:
Governments are deeply and historically involved in energy markets. They set regulatory and legal parameters. They establish tax rates. They build infrastructure. They conduct diplomacy, negotiate treaties, and invade Middle Eastern countries.
Governments always and already shape energy markets. The question is how to do it better. Obama has introduced a credible, detailed approach. He evinces commitment to thinking the problem through, interest in the details, and a level of seriousness that is nowhere evident in McCain. That's the relevant comparison.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
