30 thoughts on “2007: John McCain on Climate Change: “It’s Real. I’ve seen it.””
I knew there was a reason I contributed $$$ to his campaign early on (long before he chose Palin as his veep, which pushed me to Obama). I agree that we couldn’t have said it better ourselves. (Except maybe for the cap and trade/carbon tax part, but he did say it way back in 2007, and he is a politician, so we can forgive him that).
– The poorest people take the subway, you can subside buses with gas taxes, and make it less or non-regressive.
– Coal for energy is going bankrupt.
– Coal processing uses so much water, pollutes so much water, that in a time of Global Drought it would be suicide to expand coal.
– Solar and wind are reducing prices at peak hours.
– China coal usage down, solar expanding rapidly.
But, yes, I miss the rational John McCain, and a rational Republican Party.
– Coal processing uses so much water, pollutes so much water, that in a time of Global Drought it would be suicide to expand coal.
Quite true.
– Coal for energy is going bankrupt.
– China coal usage down, solar expanding rapidly.
Not quite true. Some excerpts from a climate central piece:
– In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
– From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
– At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.
– And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.
You can find much more data on line about coal use in the world, and on China in particular, since China is the 800 pound gorilla coal-wise. And remember that some “slowing” on a huge base is not balanced by a “rapidly expanding” very small base. Not for many years and not in time anyway.
“I miss the rational John McCain, and a rational Republican Party”. I think most Americans would agree with that, especially the last part.
Here’s a question I guess I intend for E-Pot but anyone who wishes can reply.
Why has China embraced coal so much when they’ve had nuclear plants since 1991?
The TMI & Chernobyl accidents didn’t affect their decisions and what they care about the opinion of any Greenies falls roughly between a flying frack & a rat’s ass.
So why did they forge ahead with the 3 Gorges Dam, displacing millions, built on a SEISMIC FAULT,( and widely opposed by environmentalists ) and so MUCH coal when nuclear is supposed to be so superior on all counts?
Why has China embraced coal so much when they’ve had nuclear plants since 1991?
China’s industrialization and resulting energy needs have grown so rapidly that they have had little choice but to “embrace” coal, and if wasn’t proving to be such an environmental disaster they would probably not be looking much at nuclear power. The same things that have held nuclear back in so many places in the world are in play in China. China has been behind the curve on nuclear from the beginning, and even though they are building a number of new nukes and planning more, it isn’t going to add up to much. Check out the climate central link.
TMI & Chernobyl probably did have some effect in China, and the Fukushima disaster brought on anti-nuke demonstrations. “What they care about the opinion of any Greenies falls roughly between a flying frack & a rat’s ass” is colorful, but it was perhaps more true of the decision to forge ahead with the 3 Gorges Dam. That dam had first been talked about back around WW1, and it was a good idea in terms of generating electricity and controlling water flow to alleviate drought and prevent flooding. The FF and RA comes into play because China was a totalitarian society and didn’t care about the objections. A lot of it was the need to build a “monument” to the superiority of the “Chinese Way” etc.
I don’t know if E-Pot will “bite”, but IMO it all comes back to the same question. Are we going to do all of the things that are needed to cut CO2 emissions in time to avoid CAGW? Nuclear power, in spite of all the misguided opposition, can be a big part of the answer. (And did you notice that McCain thinks so too?)
What E-Pot refuses to accept is that the nuclear industry and its supporters have done a TERRIBLE job of selling their solution. They’ve been losing to fossil fuels, especially coal long before wind & solar were even remotely viable.
Losing to a fuel that DEMONSTRABLY kills hundreds of thousands or more every year, where you have coal seam fires that burn for centuries, mine explosions, black lungs, water contamination and nuclear still loses.
The only real successes are where it was imposed by government and it’s managed to get more & more expensive and advancements have been slow to come.
But that’s not what really galls me about the nuke nuts; it’s that, for so long, long before TMI, they’ve been silent against coal. They let one of the filthiest, most corrupt industries take over the world and put fathers and brothers in the ground before their time – and stayed silent.
And now they want to attack the “greenies” for some hard-won successes?
Those who fight may lose but those who don’t, can’t ever win nor deserve to.
Now it’s easy to understand why the public may be fearful but why can’t the big atomic brains convince the sober, thoughtful people of finance, industry & insurance?
Instead of wasting time lambasting the “lying Greens” for the Party of Five that bother to read his Ergosphere, a little soul-searching as to why the nuclear message is so pathetically weak that a handful of accidents in a 1/2 century can significantly derail the industry on a global scale while planes, trains & automobiles crash & burn from daily to monthly and we keep on driving & flying.
A nice link, if perhaps a bit too much “business-speak”.
A key statement is “Consumption grew 3 percent last year, driven by coal use in developing nations……Use of renewables such as solar and wind also reached a record, accounting for 2.7 percent of all energy demand”. Does the math there need to be explained?
We desperately WANT to believe things are getting better – I understand that. But we can’t blind ourselves to the full data. What we want and what actually is are often two separate things.
Loading...
I’ve also seen talk about coal use taking a brief downturn in China, but it was tied to an overall economic slowdown and concerns about air pollution. Just as CO2 emissions in the U.S. dropped during the Great Recession. Just a blip, since the sources you and I have quoted all show that fossil fuel use in China is going up, and coal will continue to be a major part of it. You can’t find any sources that say it will NOT be so.
“We desperately WANT to believe things are getting better – I understand that. But we can’t blind ourselves to the full data. What we want and what actually is are often two separate things”.
Yep, bright-sidedness and cognitive dissonance rule rather than rationality and acceptance of reality—-a sign that humans have a lot more evolving to do before we are “worthy” of the exalted position we imagine ourselves occupying on the planet.
This is the effect of gasoline prices rising involuntarily, and that trend will continue despite the recent minor drop in prices. A voluntary rise, in the form of a tax, would increase it further.
Besides travel, rising gasoline prices affect food prices and consumer spending. Virtually every product manufactured and shipped is affected.
Unfortunately, the poor bare the brunt of a declining economy in virtually any circumstance – although the middle can rapidly join the poor in such a case, too.
It’s heartless, I know, but at some point we should ask if the priority is our short-term comfort or our species long-term comfort. If it’s always our short-term comfort that takes priority, that’s what we’ll get. Additionally, man is always best at adapting to new situations when he is forced to do so. If we want to see major improvements in mass transport, it won’t happen if we all have cheap private vehicles. It’ll happen because we need better mass transport.
“It’s heartless, I know, but at some point we should ask if the priority is our short-term comfort or our species long-term comfort”.
I would argue that it’s short-term “comfort” versus long-term SURVIVAL, and what IS heartless is following a path that is likely to lead to massive suffering for billions of humans and other living things, and even extinction for many species. Until we ask that question and get everyone on the same page, we’re going nowhere.
Not being a U.S citizen it’s none of my business really, but John McCain talks a lot of sense on the video, how on Earth did he end up being paired with Sarah Palin and how come they did not end up trying to kill each other ? What a mystery.
When I was a child, I remember going to Saturday cinema matinees and watching early mono-colour westerns, the U.S cavalry always rode in preceded by a bugler and saved the day. (every time – you could always depend on them).
Not being a U.S citizen it’s none of my business really, but John McCain talks a lot of sense on the video, how on Earth did he end up being paired with Sarah Palin and how come they did not end up trying to kill each other ? What a mystery.
When I was a child, I remember going to Saturday cinema matinees and watching early mono-colour westerns, the U.S cavalry always rode in preceded by a bugler and saved the day. (every time – you could always depend on them).
Palin was a cynical attempt on McCain’s part to capture a portion of the vote from Obama – specifically, those voters who were upset that Obama had won the Democratic nomination. At the time, it was still a factor. As the race wore on, it became clear who Palin really was, and McCain ended up losing both the votes he thought he’d get and a lot of moderate Republicans.
He didn’t vet Palin well. That became very clear within a few weeks. It also became clear that if he made a mistake of that magnitude with one of his first decisions, it didn’t bode well for him as a President.
McCain listened to some bad advice. I suspect he did get an urge to kill Palin at some point during the campaign, but I would bet he had a greater urge to kill those who suggested her to him (and maybe himself for listening to them—-many Americans think she was the main reason McCain lost).
Being a citizen of the world, it most definitely IS your business to wonder and worry about what goes on in the U.S. We worry about what is going on in your part of the world with Abbott, someone even worse than Palin.
Re: the link to the U.S chairing the Arctic Council, don’t expect too much. The drill, baby, drill and dig, baby, dig folks are still in charge.
A great link and a great stroll down (bad) memory lane. It reminded me of why I was supportive of McCain for a while—-the talk that Joe Lieberman was going to be his running mate. It would have been politically smart, and I thought that having two crotchety old guys in charge, one a Jew and the other an ex-POW, would scare the bejesus out of the Arabs, the NK’s, the Iranians, the Chinese, (and maybe everyone else), and lead to a new era of stability in the world.
Palin did have one positive effect—-the role of a lifetime for Tina Fey on SNL and grist for many jokes. My favorite was the bumper sticker that appeared during the 2012 primaries—–PALIN/BACHMANN—THE RETURN OF THELMA AND LOUISE (vote for them and watch them drive the country off the cliff)
” John McCain talks a lot of sense on the video, how on Earth did he end up being paired with Sarah Palin”
Because, more than anything else, John McCain is a political opportunist. He is only a ‘maverick’ when it is safe for his political career, which is now nearing four thousand years in office. He has been in office ten times longer than the United States has existed, which is the only way one can rationalize how many times his positions on nearly every issue have whip-sawed back and forth over the millennia.
In reply to Morin Moss comment—-October 27, 2014 at 8:07 pm
I think you’ve let your war with E-Pot (on top of some preexisting anti-nuke bias) alter your perceptions of the history of fossil fuel use and nuclear power on Earth. We could easily turn your first statement around to say, “What Morin Moss refuses to accept is that it is not the job of the nuclear industry and its supporters to sell their solution”.
The science is well-known and workable, but it has been rejected for political, emotional, and “preserve the fossil fuel corporatocracy and plutocracy” reasons. Nuclear power has been subjected to a long term propaganda war by the fossil fuel interests, and the fact is that it has not lost that psy-war so much as the fossil fuel interests have won it. And often by using unscientific and unfair arguments.
I speak as one who was in high school during the very early days of nuclear power in the 50’s and was anti-nuclear in the 70’s. As I’ve mentioned before, I even signed a letter to the government opposing nuclear power along with some famous names and Nobel Prize winners—-that letter also ended up being a full page ad in the Washington Post at the time—-I’m sure my name was just a “filler” to pad the list and was listed as “science educator”. If I knew then what I know now, I would NOT have been anti-nuclear
Some things to remember about that time and how we’ve gotten to today::
1) The rise of fossil fuels really took off only after WW2.
2) There were only ~3 billion people on the plant in 1960. 50 years later that number has doubled.
3) Only the western world was really industrialized—-the rest of the world was “developing”
4) We were not many years down the road from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were engaged in a cold war and nuclear arms race, and many feared that we would wipe ourselves out.
5) Radioactive fallout from atmospheric weapons tests was blanketing the Earth.
6) Some early accidents gave nuclear power a bad name.
7) Global warming from CO2 was not being talked about much then—-acid rain from SO2 was a bigger concern
8) The greens weren’t “lying” about nuclear power. In the context of the times, they saw it as “unnatural” and dangerous (which it still is). Cognitive dissonance now keeps the Greens locked into that old way of thinking even though CO2 is going to destroy the planet if not curtailed, and nuclear power CAN help mitigate.
9) There is some truth to the idea that the forces of evil in the fossil fuel industry used the Greens as foot soldiers in their battle to eliminate nuclear as a competitor. Just as they use the Tea Party today.
10) Last but not least, fossil fuels were abundant and cheap, and the technology to use them was comparatively simple and ubiquitous. Until AGW arrived, why not use them?
So, nuclear did not ”lose” to a FUEL that “DEMONSTRABLY kills hundreds of thousands or more every year…..” etc. It lost to those who stood to benefit from continued reliance on fossil fuels—-the Kochs and the other capitalists that exploit the planet and all of us so that they can get richer.
You need to get off the “What really galls me about the nuke nuts…” kick and start thinking rationally. Nuclear power advocates did NOT let “one of the filthiest, most corrupt industries take over the world and put fathers and brothers in the ground before their time – and stay silent”. From the beginning, “nuke nuts” touted nuclear as clean, efficient, cheap, and superior to coal. It still is all of those things if external costs are counted in, and it is illogical of you to suggest that they had to go into the streets to “sell” their technology and fight the forces of evil.
No one is “…attacking the “greenies” for some hard-won successes” except in your mind, and the “atomic brains can’t convince the sober, thoughtful people of finance, industry & insurance” because the “sober thoughtful people” are concerned only with profit and bottom lines. They suffer from cognitive dissonance also, in that they believe that making $$$ by exploiting the planet’s fossil fuel resources is the highest and best activity of mankind.
You need to get away from the fight with E-Pot and do some soul-searching yourself. Your thinking is way too clouded by your emotions and bias against nuclear. Nuclear power is here, it works, and it is carbon-free. It can help hold down CO2 as we move towards greater reliance on renewables. Hansen, Monbiot, et al have come to that conclusion—-why haven’t you?
“From the beginning, “nuke nuts” touted nuclear as clean, efficient, cheap, and superior to coal. It still is all of those things if external costs are counted in,…”
The external cost of fossil fuels are so titanic everything is cost-effective by comparison. “Cheap” is a comparative term. Is nuclear cheap compared to wind or solar? I don’t think so – not any more, at any rate. If there ever was a window when nuclear could be developed as relatively “cheap” compared to other renewables, that would seem to be a long time ago.
Is it possible to make new nuclear plants safer than Fukushima-style AND cheaper than solar or wind?
What’s “cheap” or “expensive” when the entire biosphere is at risk? It’s that question of externals that should settle the issue and make increased reliance on nuclear part of the answer even though the days of “electricity so cheap that we won’t meter it” have long passed. Coal, oil, and natural gas are so cheap in comparison to renewables and nuclear only because we don’t factor in externals. That’s why we need a carbon tax to get the real costs in balance.
It IS possible to make new nuclear plants safer than “Fukushima-style” and also build them more quickly and less expensively than older style plants. As E-Pot has said often, we can do it but we lack the will to do so. At this point nuclear is cheaper (for a few more years anyway) than solar and off-shore wind, but not on-shore. And of course, fossil fuels are way “cheaper” and profitable for the corporations than any other source, so that’s why we continue to burn them.
Once again, Crock’s Dunning-Kruger poster child fails to recognize that he lacks competence in reading and interpreting what is said in the links he posts.
Yes, “for a few years anyway” IS true if one examines all the data, and takes note of how the calculations were done. The title should have been “Solar power is cheaper than nuclear….IF…..”.
“On baseload, all renewables except marine beat coal and nuclear. Combined cycle gas just hangs on.”
“Citi says solar is already becoming more attractive than gas-fired peaking plants, both from a cost perspective and a fuel diversity perspective. And in baseload generation, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro are becoming more economically attractive than baseload gas.”
The report notes that nuclear and coal are structurally disadvantaged because both technologies are viewed as uncompetitive on cost. Environmental regulations are making coal even pricier, and the aging nuclear fleet in the U.S. is facing plant shutdowns due to the challenging economics.
“We predict that solar, wind, and biomass continue to gain market share from coal and nuclear into the future,” the Citi analysts write.
“As for solar, costs are coming down. Citi says the base-case LCOE for solar is 13 cents/kWh, the near-term upside is 11 cents/kWh and the long-term upside (2016) is 10 cents/kWh. (This is despite the fact that some power purchase contracts are being written as low as 4 cents/kWh or 5 cents/kWh, but those figures are helped by various tax rebates.)”
“On nuclear, Citi says cost overruns at the Vogtle plant under construction in Georgia — now slated to cost $15 billion, way above expectations — mean that nuclear is pricing itself out of the market. Citi puts nuclear’s LCOE at 11 cents/kWh, which it said is relatively expensive, versus combined cycle gas plants and solar and wind. And it notes that while financing costs are inexpensive in the current monetary environment, this situation will not last.
“Financing costs are likely to rise, which would hurt the LCOE attractiveness of a high-construction-cost generating source like nuclear,” Citi says. “As a result, we do not expect nuclear to effectively compete on economic merits. Despite this LCOE dynamic, there is merit to increasing fuel diversity and supporting lower carbon generation.”
I knew there was a reason I contributed $$$ to his campaign early on (long before he chose Palin as his veep, which pushed me to Obama). I agree that we couldn’t have said it better ourselves. (Except maybe for the cap and trade/carbon tax part, but he did say it way back in 2007, and he is a politician, so we can forgive him that).
– The poorest people take the subway, you can subside buses with gas taxes, and make it less or non-regressive.
– Coal for energy is going bankrupt.
– Coal processing uses so much water, pollutes so much water, that in a time of Global Drought it would be suicide to expand coal.
– Solar and wind are reducing prices at peak hours.
– China coal usage down, solar expanding rapidly.
But, yes, I miss the rational John McCain, and a rational Republican Party.
– Coal processing uses so much water, pollutes so much water, that in a time of Global Drought it would be suicide to expand coal.
Quite true.
– Coal for energy is going bankrupt.
– China coal usage down, solar expanding rapidly.
Not quite true. Some excerpts from a climate central piece:
– In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
– From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
– At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.
– And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999
You can find much more data on line about coal use in the world, and on China in particular, since China is the 800 pound gorilla coal-wise. And remember that some “slowing” on a huge base is not balanced by a “rapidly expanding” very small base. Not for many years and not in time anyway.
“I miss the rational John McCain, and a rational Republican Party”. I think most Americans would agree with that, especially the last part.
Here’s a question I guess I intend for E-Pot but anyone who wishes can reply.
Why has China embraced coal so much when they’ve had nuclear plants since 1991?
The TMI & Chernobyl accidents didn’t affect their decisions and what they care about the opinion of any Greenies falls roughly between a flying frack & a rat’s ass.
So why did they forge ahead with the 3 Gorges Dam, displacing millions, built on a SEISMIC FAULT,( and widely opposed by environmentalists ) and so MUCH coal when nuclear is supposed to be so superior on all counts?
My two cents.
Why has China embraced coal so much when they’ve had nuclear plants since 1991?
China’s industrialization and resulting energy needs have grown so rapidly that they have had little choice but to “embrace” coal, and if wasn’t proving to be such an environmental disaster they would probably not be looking much at nuclear power. The same things that have held nuclear back in so many places in the world are in play in China. China has been behind the curve on nuclear from the beginning, and even though they are building a number of new nukes and planning more, it isn’t going to add up to much. Check out the climate central link.
TMI & Chernobyl probably did have some effect in China, and the Fukushima disaster brought on anti-nuke demonstrations. “What they care about the opinion of any Greenies falls roughly between a flying frack & a rat’s ass” is colorful, but it was perhaps more true of the decision to forge ahead with the 3 Gorges Dam. That dam had first been talked about back around WW1, and it was a good idea in terms of generating electricity and controlling water flow to alleviate drought and prevent flooding. The FF and RA comes into play because China was a totalitarian society and didn’t care about the objections. A lot of it was the need to build a “monument” to the superiority of the “Chinese Way” etc.
I don’t know if E-Pot will “bite”, but IMO it all comes back to the same question. Are we going to do all of the things that are needed to cut CO2 emissions in time to avoid CAGW? Nuclear power, in spite of all the misguided opposition, can be a big part of the answer. (And did you notice that McCain thinks so too?)
What E-Pot refuses to accept is that the nuclear industry and its supporters have done a TERRIBLE job of selling their solution. They’ve been losing to fossil fuels, especially coal long before wind & solar were even remotely viable.
Losing to a fuel that DEMONSTRABLY kills hundreds of thousands or more every year, where you have coal seam fires that burn for centuries, mine explosions, black lungs, water contamination and nuclear still loses.
The only real successes are where it was imposed by government and it’s managed to get more & more expensive and advancements have been slow to come.
But that’s not what really galls me about the nuke nuts; it’s that, for so long, long before TMI, they’ve been silent against coal. They let one of the filthiest, most corrupt industries take over the world and put fathers and brothers in the ground before their time – and stayed silent.
And now they want to attack the “greenies” for some hard-won successes?
Those who fight may lose but those who don’t, can’t ever win nor deserve to.
Now it’s easy to understand why the public may be fearful but why can’t the big atomic brains convince the sober, thoughtful people of finance, industry & insurance?
Instead of wasting time lambasting the “lying Greens” for the Party of Five that bother to read his Ergosphere, a little soul-searching as to why the nuclear message is so pathetically weak that a handful of accidents in a 1/2 century can significantly derail the industry on a global scale while planes, trains & automobiles crash & burn from daily to monthly and we keep on driving & flying.
Coal use:
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-16/coal-s-share-of-world-energy-consumption-at-highest-since-1970.html
A nice link, if perhaps a bit too much “business-speak”.
A key statement is “Consumption grew 3 percent last year, driven by coal use in developing nations……Use of renewables such as solar and wind also reached a record, accounting for 2.7 percent of all energy demand”. Does the math there need to be explained?
On China itself, people are crediting a recent Greenpeace report that says coal use has dropped in China by 1 percent so far this year:
http://grist.org/news/chinas-coal-use-is-actually-dropping-for-the-first-time-this-century/
It’s not verified by more than that one source, and it’s based on a translation of a Chinese government release. In other words, it’s far from certain. Even if it is, here’s what China is really looking at going forward (also from Greenpeace):
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/china%E2%80%99s-planned-coal-gas-emit-over-1-billion-tons-co2
We desperately WANT to believe things are getting better – I understand that. But we can’t blind ourselves to the full data. What we want and what actually is are often two separate things.
I’ve also seen talk about coal use taking a brief downturn in China, but it was tied to an overall economic slowdown and concerns about air pollution. Just as CO2 emissions in the U.S. dropped during the Great Recession. Just a blip, since the sources you and I have quoted all show that fossil fuel use in China is going up, and coal will continue to be a major part of it. You can’t find any sources that say it will NOT be so.
“We desperately WANT to believe things are getting better – I understand that. But we can’t blind ourselves to the full data. What we want and what actually is are often two separate things”.
Yep, bright-sidedness and cognitive dissonance rule rather than rationality and acceptance of reality—-a sign that humans have a lot more evolving to do before we are “worthy” of the exalted position we imagine ourselves occupying on the planet.
Not every poor person lives near a subway station or a bus, and in fact the cities are gentrifying while the suburbs are becoming poorer:
http://m.fastcoexist.com/1682599/maps-show-how-poverty-has-moved-to-the-suburbs-become-more-racially-diverse
This is the effect of gasoline prices rising involuntarily, and that trend will continue despite the recent minor drop in prices. A voluntary rise, in the form of a tax, would increase it further.
Besides travel, rising gasoline prices affect food prices and consumer spending. Virtually every product manufactured and shipped is affected.
Unfortunately, the poor bare the brunt of a declining economy in virtually any circumstance – although the middle can rapidly join the poor in such a case, too.
It’s heartless, I know, but at some point we should ask if the priority is our short-term comfort or our species long-term comfort. If it’s always our short-term comfort that takes priority, that’s what we’ll get. Additionally, man is always best at adapting to new situations when he is forced to do so. If we want to see major improvements in mass transport, it won’t happen if we all have cheap private vehicles. It’ll happen because we need better mass transport.
“It’s heartless, I know, but at some point we should ask if the priority is our short-term comfort or our species long-term comfort”.
I would argue that it’s short-term “comfort” versus long-term SURVIVAL, and what IS heartless is following a path that is likely to lead to massive suffering for billions of humans and other living things, and even extinction for many species. Until we ask that question and get everyone on the same page, we’re going nowhere.
Not being a U.S citizen it’s none of my business really, but John McCain talks a lot of sense on the video, how on Earth did he end up being paired with Sarah Palin and how come they did not end up trying to kill each other ? What a mystery.
When I was a child, I remember going to Saturday cinema matinees and watching early mono-colour westerns, the U.S cavalry always rode in preceded by a bugler and saved the day. (every time – you could always depend on them).
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/221816-us-outlines-strategy-for-arctic-council-puts-climate-on-top
Not being a U.S citizen it’s none of my business really, but John McCain talks a lot of sense on the video, how on Earth did he end up being paired with Sarah Palin and how come they did not end up trying to kill each other ? What a mystery.
When I was a child, I remember going to Saturday cinema matinees and watching early mono-colour westerns, the U.S cavalry always rode in preceded by a bugler and saved the day. (every time – you could always depend on them).
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/221816-us-outlines-strategy-for-arctic-council-puts-climate-on-top
Palin was a cynical attempt on McCain’s part to capture a portion of the vote from Obama – specifically, those voters who were upset that Obama had won the Democratic nomination. At the time, it was still a factor. As the race wore on, it became clear who Palin really was, and McCain ended up losing both the votes he thought he’d get and a lot of moderate Republicans.
He didn’t vet Palin well. That became very clear within a few weeks. It also became clear that if he made a mistake of that magnitude with one of his first decisions, it didn’t bode well for him as a President.
McCain listened to some bad advice. I suspect he did get an urge to kill Palin at some point during the campaign, but I would bet he had a greater urge to kill those who suggested her to him (and maybe himself for listening to them—-many Americans think she was the main reason McCain lost).
Being a citizen of the world, it most definitely IS your business to wonder and worry about what goes on in the U.S. We worry about what is going on in your part of the world with Abbott, someone even worse than Palin.
Re: the link to the U.S chairing the Arctic Council, don’t expect too much. The drill, baby, drill and dig, baby, dig folks are still in charge.
From the period:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/sarah_palin_john_mccains_vp_choice/
Best quote: “She’s going to make us pine for the days of Dan Quayle, methinks.”
A great link and a great stroll down (bad) memory lane. It reminded me of why I was supportive of McCain for a while—-the talk that Joe Lieberman was going to be his running mate. It would have been politically smart, and I thought that having two crotchety old guys in charge, one a Jew and the other an ex-POW, would scare the bejesus out of the Arabs, the NK’s, the Iranians, the Chinese, (and maybe everyone else), and lead to a new era of stability in the world.
Palin did have one positive effect—-the role of a lifetime for Tina Fey on SNL and grist for many jokes. My favorite was the bumper sticker that appeared during the 2012 primaries—–PALIN/BACHMANN—THE RETURN OF THELMA AND LOUISE (vote for them and watch them drive the country off the cliff)
” John McCain talks a lot of sense on the video, how on Earth did he end up being paired with Sarah Palin”
Because, more than anything else, John McCain is a political opportunist. He is only a ‘maverick’ when it is safe for his political career, which is now nearing four thousand years in office. He has been in office ten times longer than the United States has existed, which is the only way one can rationalize how many times his positions on nearly every issue have whip-sawed back and forth over the millennia.
In reply to Morin Moss comment—-October 27, 2014 at 8:07 pm
I think you’ve let your war with E-Pot (on top of some preexisting anti-nuke bias) alter your perceptions of the history of fossil fuel use and nuclear power on Earth. We could easily turn your first statement around to say, “What Morin Moss refuses to accept is that it is not the job of the nuclear industry and its supporters to sell their solution”.
The science is well-known and workable, but it has been rejected for political, emotional, and “preserve the fossil fuel corporatocracy and plutocracy” reasons. Nuclear power has been subjected to a long term propaganda war by the fossil fuel interests, and the fact is that it has not lost that psy-war so much as the fossil fuel interests have won it. And often by using unscientific and unfair arguments.
I speak as one who was in high school during the very early days of nuclear power in the 50’s and was anti-nuclear in the 70’s. As I’ve mentioned before, I even signed a letter to the government opposing nuclear power along with some famous names and Nobel Prize winners—-that letter also ended up being a full page ad in the Washington Post at the time—-I’m sure my name was just a “filler” to pad the list and was listed as “science educator”. If I knew then what I know now, I would NOT have been anti-nuclear
Some things to remember about that time and how we’ve gotten to today::
1) The rise of fossil fuels really took off only after WW2.
2) There were only ~3 billion people on the plant in 1960. 50 years later that number has doubled.
3) Only the western world was really industrialized—-the rest of the world was “developing”
4) We were not many years down the road from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were engaged in a cold war and nuclear arms race, and many feared that we would wipe ourselves out.
5) Radioactive fallout from atmospheric weapons tests was blanketing the Earth.
6) Some early accidents gave nuclear power a bad name.
7) Global warming from CO2 was not being talked about much then—-acid rain from SO2 was a bigger concern
8) The greens weren’t “lying” about nuclear power. In the context of the times, they saw it as “unnatural” and dangerous (which it still is). Cognitive dissonance now keeps the Greens locked into that old way of thinking even though CO2 is going to destroy the planet if not curtailed, and nuclear power CAN help mitigate.
9) There is some truth to the idea that the forces of evil in the fossil fuel industry used the Greens as foot soldiers in their battle to eliminate nuclear as a competitor. Just as they use the Tea Party today.
10) Last but not least, fossil fuels were abundant and cheap, and the technology to use them was comparatively simple and ubiquitous. Until AGW arrived, why not use them?
So, nuclear did not ”lose” to a FUEL that “DEMONSTRABLY kills hundreds of thousands or more every year…..” etc. It lost to those who stood to benefit from continued reliance on fossil fuels—-the Kochs and the other capitalists that exploit the planet and all of us so that they can get richer.
You need to get off the “What really galls me about the nuke nuts…” kick and start thinking rationally. Nuclear power advocates did NOT let “one of the filthiest, most corrupt industries take over the world and put fathers and brothers in the ground before their time – and stay silent”. From the beginning, “nuke nuts” touted nuclear as clean, efficient, cheap, and superior to coal. It still is all of those things if external costs are counted in, and it is illogical of you to suggest that they had to go into the streets to “sell” their technology and fight the forces of evil.
No one is “…attacking the “greenies” for some hard-won successes” except in your mind, and the “atomic brains can’t convince the sober, thoughtful people of finance, industry & insurance” because the “sober thoughtful people” are concerned only with profit and bottom lines. They suffer from cognitive dissonance also, in that they believe that making $$$ by exploiting the planet’s fossil fuel resources is the highest and best activity of mankind.
You need to get away from the fight with E-Pot and do some soul-searching yourself. Your thinking is way too clouded by your emotions and bias against nuclear. Nuclear power is here, it works, and it is carbon-free. It can help hold down CO2 as we move towards greater reliance on renewables. Hansen, Monbiot, et al have come to that conclusion—-why haven’t you?
“From the beginning, “nuke nuts” touted nuclear as clean, efficient, cheap, and superior to coal. It still is all of those things if external costs are counted in,…”
The external cost of fossil fuels are so titanic everything is cost-effective by comparison. “Cheap” is a comparative term. Is nuclear cheap compared to wind or solar? I don’t think so – not any more, at any rate. If there ever was a window when nuclear could be developed as relatively “cheap” compared to other renewables, that would seem to be a long time ago.
Is it possible to make new nuclear plants safer than Fukushima-style AND cheaper than solar or wind?
What’s “cheap” or “expensive” when the entire biosphere is at risk? It’s that question of externals that should settle the issue and make increased reliance on nuclear part of the answer even though the days of “electricity so cheap that we won’t meter it” have long passed. Coal, oil, and natural gas are so cheap in comparison to renewables and nuclear only because we don’t factor in externals. That’s why we need a carbon tax to get the real costs in balance.
It IS possible to make new nuclear plants safer than “Fukushima-style” and also build them more quickly and less expensively than older style plants. As E-Pot has said often, we can do it but we lack the will to do so. At this point nuclear is cheaper (for a few more years anyway) than solar and off-shore wind, but not on-shore. And of course, fossil fuels are way “cheaper” and profitable for the corporations than any other source, so that’s why we continue to burn them.
No one is “…attacking the “greenies” for some hard-won successes”
” it appears that renewables may be unable to do the job at any price. ”
” no one is more dishonest at calculating costs than the renewable folks.”
“I think that many of the so-called greens would rather become AGW deniers ”
“Peter, I’m becoming increasingly flabbergasted that the solar cheerleaders (of which you are one)”
……….
Is there a cogent thought in there somewhere?
Environmentalist?
” At this point nuclear is cheaper (for a few more years anyway) than solar”
“Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear”
“Posted July 27, 2010”
http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/10688/solar-nuclear-costs
http://theenergycollective.com/oshadavidson/40559/study-solar-power-cheaper-nuclear
Once again, Crock’s Dunning-Kruger poster child fails to recognize that he lacks competence in reading and interpreting what is said in the links he posts.
Yes, “for a few years anyway” IS true if one examines all the data, and takes note of how the calculations were done. The title should have been “Solar power is cheaper than nuclear….IF…..”.
“On baseload, all renewables except marine beat coal and nuclear. Combined cycle gas just hangs on.”
“Citi says solar is already becoming more attractive than gas-fired peaking plants, both from a cost perspective and a fuel diversity perspective. And in baseload generation, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro are becoming more economically attractive than baseload gas.”
The report notes that nuclear and coal are structurally disadvantaged because both technologies are viewed as uncompetitive on cost. Environmental regulations are making coal even pricier, and the aging nuclear fleet in the U.S. is facing plant shutdowns due to the challenging economics.
“We predict that solar, wind, and biomass continue to gain market share from coal and nuclear into the future,” the Citi analysts write.
“As for solar, costs are coming down. Citi says the base-case LCOE for solar is 13 cents/kWh, the near-term upside is 11 cents/kWh and the long-term upside (2016) is 10 cents/kWh. (This is despite the fact that some power purchase contracts are being written as low as 4 cents/kWh or 5 cents/kWh, but those figures are helped by various tax rebates.)”
“On nuclear, Citi says cost overruns at the Vogtle plant under construction in Georgia — now slated to cost $15 billion, way above expectations — mean that nuclear is pricing itself out of the market. Citi puts nuclear’s LCOE at 11 cents/kWh, which it said is relatively expensive, versus combined cycle gas plants and solar and wind. And it notes that while financing costs are inexpensive in the current monetary environment, this situation will not last.
“Financing costs are likely to rise, which would hurt the LCOE attractiveness of a high-construction-cost generating source like nuclear,” Citi says. “As a result, we do not expect nuclear to effectively compete on economic merits. Despite this LCOE dynamic, there is merit to increasing fuel diversity and supporting lower carbon generation.”
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/citigroup-says-the-age-of-renewables-has-begun