Energy | September 27, 2008 |
McCain's 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
At the democratic convention last month, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer said Republican presidential nominee John McCain's congressional actions on clean energy and environmental protection were inconsistent with his campaign promises of environmental stewardship .
"John McCain voted 25 times against renewable and alternative energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind energy."
After the speech, most news coverage relied on this AP FactCheck article disputing the general concept, while not actually refuting the vote tally. But closer scrutiny of his record reveals that he voted against sustainable legislation or said he would have done so more than 50 times, as listed below.
As a long time clean-energy legislation activist, I have been tracking related Senate votes since the
In this live chat, McCain explains his belief that clean energy, like solar and wind are ineffective against climate change. McCain has many times expressed his sincere belief that only nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gases.
McCain believes climate change is real, and he was the co-sponsor of McCain-Lieberman 2005, a significant piece of legislation that would have established the first caps on greenhouse gas emissions. He wants to invest $4 trillion in nuclear power and supports cap-and-trade systems for greenhouse gas emissions, but only if it has enough nuclear funding.
No other Senator supports spending this much on one energy source. The Republican ticket has a record of being friendlier towards continuing oil and coal subsidies and is opposed to a cap-and-trade system if it were to take money from these industries.
McCain-Lieberman failed in part because of the strong support for nuclear. Fellow Republican Senator James Inhofe, a climate change skeptic, supports nuclear power, but even he voted against federal funding of nuclear power (see vote 34 below). This is also why McCain-Lieberman never made it to the Senate floor for a vote in 2007, despite the publicity.
Boxer-Sanders, Kerry-Snowe and Warner-Lieberman, other climate change bills that didn't make it to a vote, also lost McCain's support because he felt they didn't have enough nuclear power subsidies in them. Environment Committee Chair Boxer increased nuclear funding considerably to get McCains vote on Warner-Lieberman, but she did not increase it enough apparently, and Warner-Lieberman never made it to the floor for a vote.
In this list of votes, as a reference point I include the votes of Senators Boxer and Inhofe for each example. Boxer is known as the most environmentally focused voice in the Senate while Inohofe's stance that "global warming is a giant hoax" is at the other end of the voting continuum.
I noted party sponsorship of bills (D) or (R) to assess his bipartisanship. Two of the most common misconceptions about McCain's stance on clean energy are that he supports clean energy, and that he crosses the aisle. While it is indeed accurate that McCain does believe climate change is real, thus allying him in general with the Democrats and a few Republicans, his voting record shows that he does not support renewable energy to solve it, but relies on nuclear power alone. Surprisingly, he actually crosses the aisle less than even Inhofe.
Summary
McCain voted with Boxer 1 out of 50 times - against signing the
McCain voted with Inhofe 42 out of 44 times unless Inhofe voted with Boxer (see votes 34 and 35).
McCain voted with Republicans unless they voted with Democrats (see votes 9, 10, 12, 15,16 and 36).
I will similarly review Senator Obama's voting record in a future post.
1. '93 (D) Exempt clean energy from new Clinton/Gore BTU tax
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - every Republican voted No
McCain No
passed 55-43
2. '93 (D) Clinton/Gore BTU tax
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - all but 2 Republicans voted No
McCain No
passed 57-41
3. '94 (D) Make R&D tax credit permanent
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - all but 2 Republicans voted No
McCain No
passed 57-41
4. '94 (D) Clinton/Gore funding for advanced clean tech research
Boxer Yes
Inhofe not yet in congress - all but 2 Republicans voted No
McCain No
passed 59-40
5. '94 (D) Weaken EPA if it costs polluters
Boxer No
Inhofe not yet in congress - all but 3 Republicans voted Yes
McCain Yes
passed 90-8
6. '94 (R) Let coal states fail Clean Water Act
Boxer No
Inhofe not yet in congress - most Republicans voted Yes
McCain Yes
failed 28-67
7. '95 (R) Disregard ("table") requirement for nuclear waste cleanup
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 57-40
8. '96 (D) Improve environmental standards for subsidy eligibility
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 57-39
9. '96 (D) EPA cleanup of toxic sites
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 81-19 (most Republicans voted with Boxer on this)
10. '96 (D) Fund home energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 77-23 (many Republicans voted with Boxer)
11. '96 (R) Gut nuclear waste disposal laws
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 63-37
12. '96 (D) Discard McCain amendment to gut passenger rail
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 82-17 (most Republicans voted against McCain)
13. '97 (R) Stop funding cellulosic ethanol R&D
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 30-69
14. '97 (R) Don't sign Kyoto unless China etc agree
Boxer Yes
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 95-0
15. '98 (R) Cellulosic ethanol subsidy
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 71-26 (most Republicans voted with Boxer)
16. '99 (R) Stop subsidising biogas development
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 23-77 (most Republicans voted with Boxer)
17. '00 (R) Overide Clinton veto of unregulated nuclear disposal
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 64-35 (need 66 to overide veto)
18. '01 (D) Tax credits for clean energy R&D
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 46-54
19. '01 (R) Drill off Florida coast
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 67-33
20. '02 (R) Drop incentive for combined-cycle heat and power
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 37-60
21. '02 (D) Require utilities buy 20% clean energy : 20% RPS
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 29-70 2
22. '02 (R) Reduce 20% RPS requirement
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 40-58
23. '02 (R) Waive 20% RPS if utilities complain
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
failed 37-58
24. '02 (D) Weaken appliance efficiency requirement
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 52-47
25. '03 (D) Make Coal Companies clean up toxic sludge
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 43-56
26. '03 (D) Restore funding for (levies) Army Corps of Engineers
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 51-48
27. '03 (D) Increase fuel efficiency requirement
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 32-65
28. '05 (D) Increase clean energy R&D funding
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 53-46
29. '05 (R) Appoint Stephen L. Johnson to head EPA
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Yes
passed 61-37
30. '05 (D) Clean energy incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 47-53
31. '05 (D) Require utilities buy some clean energy: RPS
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
passed 52-48
32. '05 (D) Tax oil company windfall profits rebates to consumer
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 35-64
33. '05 (D) Tax oil companies windfall profits to fund clean energy
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 41-65
34. '05 (R) Cap and trade to fund nuclear (McCain-Lieberman)
Boxer No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 38-60
35. '05 (R) Let wind NIMBYs prevent wind development
Boxer No
Inhofe No
McCain Yes
failed 32-63
36. '05 (R-D) Energy funding for both fossil and clean energy
Boxer Yes
Inhofe Yes
McCain No
passed 85-12 (McCain in tiny minority)
37. '05 (D) Tax oil to fund energy efficiency assistance
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain No
failed 48-50
38. '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 57-36
39. '07 (D) Cloture vote tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 62-32
40. '07 (D) Tax incentives for clean energy
Boxer Not present
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 65-27
41. '07 (D) To expand liquid natural gas development
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 37-56
42. '07 (R) Coal-to-liquids fuel subsidy (Inhofe)
Boxer No
Inhofe Yes
McCain Not present
failed 43-52
43. '07 (D) Ensure that only clean fuels be subsidized
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 58-34
44. '07 (D) Include RPS in final energy bill
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 56-39
45. '07 (D) Cloture to vote on bioenergy funding
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 55-42 (cloture needs 60)
46. '07 (D) Cloture to vote on 2007 Energy Bill including production tax credits
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 53-42 (cloture needs 60)
47. '07 (D) Cloture 2007 Energy Bill including PTC
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed by one vote* 59-41 (cloture needs 60)
48. '07 (D) Weaker 2007 Energy Bill: CAFE
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
passed 86-8
49. '07 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC - solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed 52-44
50. '08 (D) Cloture to extend the PTC - solar and wind incentives
Boxer Yes
Inhofe No
McCain Not present
failed cloture 53-43
Because McCain told reporters that he would not have broken earlier Republican filibusters on these same votes (on taxing oil companies to fund renewables, and extending the production tax credits), I am assuming that his absences from the Senate on these last votes represent "no" votes, and his previous voting record indeed reflects that.
I have not included each of the 8 times the Democrats attempted to pass the production tax credit for renewable energy since taking a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate, because in some of those 8 attempts to pass the PTC, Democrats have had to tack it onto multipurpose non-energy bills, muddying our view of his possible motivations for votes.
However, even without these recent votes, it appears that Governor Schweitzer's claim about McCain's record was an understatement.
Obama's Clean Energy Voting Record
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
Some of these votes can hardly be considered "clean energy" votes. For example, ethanol subsidies have NOTHING to do with clean energy. Ethanol is not clean, in the sense that it takes more energy to produce than it contains. That energy in the US comes from burning coal, which is not clean. It's an outright lie that ethanol is good for the environment, promulgated by big agribusiness which benefits from the subsidies, and by American auto-makers who use it as an excuse not to improve fuel economy (they get a break on CAFE standards). How is something that provably worsens average fuel economy of American cars good for the environment? The other beneficiary of ethanol subsidies is politicians like Boxer who can claim that they're supporting the environment and farmers, and use that false claim to attack the few politicians intelligent enough to see through the lie, like John McCain.
Ethanol subsidies raise the price of food and cost government money, hurting the American consumer and taxpayer, all while doing nothing for the environment, and that's why John McCain voted against it. If only more of our politicians had the courage to do so.
Some of these votes can hardly be considered "clean energy" votes. For example, ethanol subsidies have NOTHING to do with clean energy. Ethanol is not clean, in the sense that it takes more energy to produce than it contains. That energy in the US comes from burning coal, which is not clean. It's an outright lie that ethanol is good for the environment, promulgated by big agribusiness which benefits from the subsidies, and by American auto-makers who use it as an excuse not to improve fuel economy (they get a break on CAFE standards). How is something that provably worsens average fuel economy of American cars good for the environment? The other beneficiary of ethanol subsidies is politicians like Boxer who can claim that they're supporting the environment and farmers, and use that false claim to attack the few politicians intelligent enough to see through the lie, like John McCain.
Ethanol subsidies raise the price of food and cost government money, hurting the American consumer and taxpayer, all while doing nothing for the environment, and that's why John McCain voted against it. If only more of our politicians had the courage to do so.
Some of these votes can hardly be considered "clean energy" votes. For example, ethanol subsidies have NOTHING to do with clean energy. Ethanol is not clean, in the sense that it takes more energy to produce than it contains. That energy in the US comes from burning coal, which is not clean. It's an outright lie that ethanol is good for the environment, promulgated by big agribusiness which benefits from the subsidies, and by American auto-makers who use it as an excuse not to improve fuel economy (they get a break on CAFE standards). How is something that provably worsens average fuel economy of American cars good for the environment? The other beneficiary of ethanol subsidies is politicians like Boxer who can claim that they're supporting the environment and farmers, and use that false claim to attack the few politicians intelligent enough to see through the lie, like John McCain.
Ethanol subsidies raise the price of food and cost government money, hurting the American consumer and taxpayer, all while doing nothing for the environment, and that's why John McCain voted against it. If only more of our politicians had the courage to do so.
really guessed i’d distribute and permit you realize your personal blogs is advantageous for learned the useful resolution.I honestly appreciate your weblog.In the proper way, the posting is in actuality probably the most efficient on this genuinely worth while topic. I concur together with your information and can thirstily appear ahead for your coming tweets. Obviously saying thanks is not heading to just be sufficient, for that incredible lucidity as portion of the writing articles or blog posts. I will swiftly consider hold of the rss feed to stay abreast of any updates.Real do the job and substantially being productive within your efforts and world wide web enterprise tries.Regardless preserve up the useful perform.Thanks.
--------------------------------------------
my website is
http://harleydavidsonmotorcyclesblog.com
Also welcome you!
Post Your Comment