John McCain's climate-change forecast

Right or wrong, we have to act, because the risk of not curbing greenhouse-gas emissions is too great.

By Amanda Griscom Little

Read more: Republican Party, Environment, John McCain, Politics, News, Renewable Energy, Solar Power, Green Living, 2008 Energy Interviews

Oct. 15, 2007 |

John McCain likes to project a tough-guy stance on the issues, and global warming is no exception. "Americans solve problems. We don't run from them," he's quoted as saying on the environment page of his Web site, which goes on to argue that "ignoring the problem reflects a 'liberal, live for today' attitude unworthy of our great country."

McCain has earned the right to put his own conservative spin on the fight against climate change. The first high-profile Republican to start talking seriously about the issue, he has called President Bush's approach to global warming "disgraceful." He cosponsored the first Senate bill calling for mandatory greenhouse-gas reductions, the 2003 McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, and has pushed a number of versions of the bill in years since. The latest iteration, though, has little support from environmentalists, because there are now much stronger climate bills in Congress, and because McCain's bill contains significant financial support for nuclear power.

But, for the most part, McCain's climate advocacy has earned praise and respect from the mainstream green establishment over the years. In his 2004 Senate campaign, he got the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters, even though the group has only given him a 26 percent lifetime voting score.

McCain is the candidate best positioned to attract support from Republican voters concerned about climate change and the environment. I rang him up recently on the campaign trail in Iowa to find out how environmental and energy issues are figuring into his push for the presidency.

For more info on his platform and record, check out Grist's McCain fact sheet.

Why should voters consider you the strongest green candidate? What sets your platform on energy and the environment apart from the others?

My clear record of environmental advocacy and activism, ranging from my efforts to protect the Grand Canyon to working with [Connecticut Sen.] Joe Lieberman to get a cap-and-trade proposal to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through the United States Senate.

You've said that global warming would be one of three key issues for your presidency. Why do you think the issue is important?

It's like Tony Blair said: Suppose we're wrong, and there's no such thing as greenhouse-gas emissions, and we adopt green technologies. All we've done is give our kids a better planet. But suppose we're right, and do nothing? Then what kind of a legacy are we handing on to future generations of Americans? I think we ought to frame the debate that way.

And I think most, if not all, of the ways that we can address this issue are through profit-motive, free-enterprise-system-driven green technologies. General Electric dedicated itself to green technologies, and guess what? They're still making a lot of money.

Why do you think many of your fellow Republican candidates aren't making climate change a priority? Do you think Republican voters care about the issue?

I'm very confident that Republican voters care, and I'm happy to say that more and more members of the so-called Christian right, or evangelical movement, are beginning to focus on our biblical obligation to be stewards of our planet.

Why others have not been more involved -- you'd have to ask them. But when I ran [for president] in 2000, in New Hampshire person after person stood up and said, "What are you going to do about climate change?" And after I lost -- grrrr -- I went back as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and had hearing after hearing after hearing on the issue. I'm deeply disappointed in the administration's failure to act on this issue, in some cases creating obfuscation and delay. But I stayed on it and developed, among other things, the bill with Joe Lieberman.

You've been a leader in Congress in calling for a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. What about a carbon tax?

No. Cap and trade, to me, is far more capitalistic and free-enterprise oriented.

Would you endorse a goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050?

I'm all for setting goals, but you've got to figure out ways to get there, OK? I could set a goal that we'd have zero greenhouse-gas emissions by next year, but that's the easy part. The hard part is telling people how you're going to get there. And by the way, I'm confident people will do what's necessary to help with this problem of greenhouse-gas emissions -- they're convinced.

Some argue that the U.S. should not sign on to an international climate agreement unless China and India participate. Do you agree?

I agree, if only from a purely political standpoint. You're not going to get anything through the Congress of the United States unless it's truly international and India and China are engaged. Now, there are lots of ways to negotiate. There are steps that we can take as a country to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. But you're going to have to have the two rising greenhouse-gas emitters in the world involved in an international treaty, I believe, to pass it through the Senate.

To what extent is Iraq a war for oil?

I think it has a big impact. It's not just Iraq oil -- it's the whole region and the stability in the region. And the stable supply of oil obviously gives it a higher national-security priority. What I don't interpret that to mean is that I think we went to war for oil, but it's certainly a factor in our national-security equation.

Sometimes the goals of achieving energy independence and reducing climate change are at odds. Would you, as president, oppose subsidizing technologies that would worsen global warming, even if they would reduce our reliance on foreign oil?

I would certainly give highest priority to those technologies that both reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and reduce our dependence on foreign oil -- including and to a significant degree nuclear power. Nuclear power is going to have to be part of any equation if we're truly going to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

How would you address the problem of safely storing and disposing of nuclear waste?

We need to make tough decisions just like the French have, and just like other European countries have: You either store it or you reprocess it. We have the reprocessing capability at the Savannah River Site [in South Carolina], and we also have a place called Yucca Mountain [in Nevada], where I believe we could safely store the nuclear waste. We have the worst of all worlds now. We've got nuclear waste sitting all over America, and we also have not moved forward with the construction of nuclear power plants, which we could do if we would streamline the procedures. Meanwhile, coal-burning power plants are being constructed as we speak.

Next page: "There's a point where you should let the free-enterprise system take over"