Capital Commerce

Is McCain Dumping Cap-and-Trade?

July 10, 2008 RSS Feed Print

Larry Kudlow drops a mega-bombshell in his blog regarding John McCain's support of a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions:

After writing favorably about Sen. McCain's recent economics speeches, where he clearly shifted toward the supply-side both on tax cuts and producing more energy, I went back last evening and carefully read his 15-page policy pamphlet called "Jobs for America." Here's what I found: There is no mention of cap-and-trade. None. Nada.... So I picked up the phone and dialed a senior McCain official to make sure these old eyes hadn't missed it. Sure enough, on deep background, this senior McCain advisor told me I was correct: no cap-and-trade. In other words, this central-planning, regulatory, tax-and-spend disaster, which did not appear in Mac's two recent speeches, has been eradicated entirely—even from the detailed policy document that hardly anybody will ever read.... Even though a McCain presidency might resurrect cap-and-trade, it will be a much different format. More important, the campaign is cognizant of the conservative rebellion against it. That's enough for me.

Me: McCain's support for cap-and-trade was really the last obstacle preventing him from giving Americans a clear-cut choice on the energy issue. Barack Obama is for making Americans pay more for energy in an effort to fight climate change; McCain wants to make energy more affordable. At the same time, McCain can say he's for reducing carbon emissions and energy independence by focusing on technology and innovation (and more drilling in the short term) as solutions rather than costly and growth-killing regulations. So what will Americans care more about, global warming or jobs? I don't think that's much of a contest these days, especially when 60 percent of us think the global economy is in a recession. (As I write this, I am listening to the theme from Band of Brothers. Maybe this will be McCain's Bastogne moment, a critical turning point for his campaign.)

Tags:: energy,; energy policy and climate change,; John McCain

« Previous Post Next Post »

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts Comment Name State Email

Please enter the two words below into the text field underneath the image.

Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Oh please Kevin, cap-and-trade requires a HUGE bureaucratic system to manage, so a lot of taxpayer dollars will just end up going to waste. It is the absolute definition of a Soviet-style economy, so there's nothing "open" about it, it's entirely controlled by the government. If you want to compare other countries, Germany implemented a cap-and-trade system and now everyone pays a 30%-40% increase on their electric bill. Yeah, way to fix the economy, let's tax the American people!
Besides, if you did your research, CO2 is not even a major greenhouse gas. To break it up, greenhouse gases are composed of 95% water vapor, 3% CO2, and 2% other. So why would you try to restrict CO2 when it's not going to do anything? The sun is what's causing the warming cycle, not us.
Kudos to McCain for dumping that garbage.

Chris of PA 6:38PM July 19, 2008

good discussion
fyi, i'm pro energy by whatever way we can get it...i just think spending $140/bbl is unsustainable for the average guy...figure we are spending at least $80/bbl more than we used to and we consume about 20mm bbl/day here in U.S...that's a lot of coin.
If businesses can benefit from cheaper sources of energy we're all better off...in addition, we move away from foreign dependency. Think about how much is spent to protect the middle east to keep pumping oil for western economies. These are big $$ as well- going into THEIR economies.
I'm just thinking practically...if we can lower cost of energy by virtue of the fact they can now develop and deliver alterantive sources because of very high oil prices AND keep the environment in better condition, why not? Develop these new energy technologies here in the U.S and export to less competitive economies for $$?
More oil supply seems like an easy fix, but its the aging refineries which is the real headline risk and not supply of crude. It will take YEARS to update and bring on line new refineries...this means the cost of energy derived from oil is unlikely to collapse in near term.
You're right about Arizona heat...I wish New York had some of that...our state might be able to make some money on those UV's...giddy up.
if this posts too late, have good wknd.

kevin of NY 5:18PM July 11, 2008

"We agree on this point then- we do need a better energy policy. Just not sure why my thinking "prevents" that...having efficient factories is consistent with a good energy policy...might as well add renewable energy and alternative enery to the mix too...those economists will tell us we need them ALL especially if the thinking is oil will be stuck at these stratospheric levels (and going higher)."
Your thinking prevents this because you seem to think that we have to do "something" to curtail global warming, at the expense of imposing huge costs on Americans. If you are for more drilling, then I'll offer you an apology, but don't quote that new liberal line of "the oil companies have 68 million acres" because it doesn't fly. You can't address a problem without being able to have the capital to fight it. I am for alternative energies, but I'm not for just throwing out all kinds of platforms. We need to find which is viable, and in order to find the one that is viable, we need lots of capital. Those same economists that are telling you you need alternative energies are also telling you we need more supplies of oil on the market. Face it, the only way the price will come down in the long-run is more oil on the market.
"Regarding your last point about the fallacy of working to curb warming and hurting the economy...not sure which economists you are referring. Whenever there is a NEED FOR ANYTHING, capital-driven economies will work to supply that need and create economic value."
It's a fallacy because in order to fight global warming you need lots of capital (notice a recurring theme?). According to the IAEA, in order to fight global warming you need more than $17 trillion. And the thing about estimates, when it comes to cost, they are almost always wrong. But let's say this number is true. Who do you think would pay for this, or carry the most burden? I'll give you a hint: you live the country that would carry that burden.
Thanks for the link, but I've already read it. I did a google search and couldn't find too many in-depth studies on acid rain.

Chris of AZ 4:13PM July 11, 2008

Is McCain Dumping Cap-and-Trade?

Related Articles

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Capital Commerce

Subscribe

Editor's Picks