McCain Speech on Energy Policy

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 24, 2007

[hope]

"who do you think has America's best interest in mind getting America off sheikh and chavez oil, McCain or obama."

Uhg...I'd have to say Obama...by way of sending us back to the stone age.

[ganesha]

If you read the opening chapter of Robert Baer’s book about Saudi Arabia, there is a scenario described in which a terrorist blows up the Saudi oil facilities at Abquaic. Due to the plumbing and geography of how the Saudi oil industry is set up, the attack cripples the whole ability of the country to export oil. I am guessing that that was what McCain was referring to.

[Will88]

“America’s electricity production is for the most part petroleum free, and the existing electric power grid has the capacity to handle the added demand imposed by plug-in hybrid vehicles. We can add more capacity and improve its reliability in the years ahead. Nuclear energy, renewable power, and other emission free forms of power production can expand capacity, improve local air quality and address climate change. I’ll work to promote real partnerships between utilities and automakers to accelerate the deployment of plug-in hybrids.”

So, McCain views plug-in hybrids as a major part of the solution? Sounds like Hillary and Obama to me.

“America’s electricity production is for the most part petroleum free,”

Is that even true? I thought a fair amount of electricity was produced using petroleum, though other energy sources produce more.

[Dog Gone]

“There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide, to recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and tap oil, natural gas, and shale economically with minimal environmental impact.”

Duh, like the oil industry never thought of drilling deeper or using CO2 floods for tertiary recovery, something they've been doing for 40 years or more.

This guy is more worried about CO2 than finding new reserves.

Hey, John! Plants love CO2! Want to see a fern as big as a house? Look in the fossil record way back when. The CO2 level was far higher than anything we have today.

[Grunthor]

I know, I know, there will be a plethora of anti-McCain responses, but who do you think has America’s best interest in mind getting America off sheikh and chavez oil, McCain or obama.

---

Ever read McCain Liebermann?

[Dog Gone]

If you read the opening chapter of Robert Baer’s book about Saudi Arabia, there is a scenario described in which a terrorist blows up the Saudi oil facilities at Abquaic. Due to the plumbing and geography of how the Saudi oil industry is set up, the attack cripples the whole ability of the country to export oil. I am guessing that that was what McCain was referring to.

Then McCain needs to learn the difference between a crude oil exporting facility and a refinery.

It's like the difference between a cattle ranch and a meat processing plant. They don't look much alike.

[DoughtyOne]

We were very lucky on that immigration deal. If they wanted to play hardball, I think they could have gotten the job done. With the election looming, McCain wasn’t going to push it. Neither was Bush.

John in the White House will have the (R) Congress on his side. And if he should propose some pipe-dream to the democrat’s liking, it will go through IMO.

The dynamic of McCain being in there means that conservatism looses it’s voice for another four or eight years. How exactly do we sell conservatism if we don’t herald it? During McCain’s term the democrats will trash conservatism. The media will trash conservatism. And when the conservatives object to what McCain is doing, they will be refered to by him and the Republican party as whacked-out fringe wing-nuts. Following that do you think we’ll be able to get a conservative nominated to just about anything?

Not only will bad policy be implemented, there will be no positive press for us even from the ranks of the Republican party.

Obama and Hillary would be challenged by the right, conservatives appreciated. Turn it around and conservatism won’t get a positive thing said about it for a long time to come.

Folks will have to do what they have to do, and we’ll see how it plays out. In 2000 I said a Bush presidency could just about kill conservatism. Now look who the nominee is and tell me I was wrong.

Expect the nominee to be worse after McCain. It sure won’t be better.

Everything that McCain does that the media doesn’t like, it will be cast as something a conservative did. Is anyone going to want another?

I don’t think it’s possible to even think of and list the ways conservatism will be hurt, if McCain gets in.

I have said it before and I’ll say it again. If John McCain becomes president, conservatism will cease to be a movement, and will become only a theory.

[Perdogg]

“It will rely on the genius and technological prowess of American industry and science. Government must set achievable goals, but the markets should be free to produce the means. And those means are within our reach.”

[Perdogg]

I guess you missed these key points, or intentionally ignored them. When did Hilabama talk about free markets?

"America, relying as always on the industry and imagination of a free people, and the power and innovation of free markets, is capable of overcoming any challenge from within and without our borders."

"It will rely on the genius and technological prowess of American industry and science. Government must set achievable goals, but the markets should be free to produce the means. And those means are within our reach."

"I won't support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the healthy competition that stimulates innovation and lower costs. But I'll encourage the development of infrastructure and market growth necessary for these products to compete, and let consumers choose the winners. I've never known an American entrepreneur worthy of the name who wouldn't rather compete for sales than subsidies."

"There is much we can do to increase our own oil production in ways that protect the environment using advanced technologies, including those that use and bury carbon dioxide, to recover the oil below the wells we have already drilled, and tap oil, natural gas, and shale economically with minimal environmental impact."

"If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we? "

"I want to spend less money on government bureaucracies, and, where the private sector isn't moving out of regulatory fear, to form the partnerships necessary to build demonstration models of promising new technologies such as advanced nuclear power plants, coal gasification, carbon capture and storage, and renewable power so we can take maximum advantage of our most abundant resources."

"The race has always been to the swift, and America must be first to market with innovations that meet mankind's growing energy and environmental needs. Again, government should set the standards, and leave it to the marketplace to win the race."

"It is a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits."(Nota Bene - Newt is favor of this).

"As it always does, the profit motive will attract the transformational power of venture capital, and unleash the market to move clean alternative fuels and advanced energy technologies from the margins into the mainstream."

"I believe "cap and trade" is the best way to manage cost and maximize benefits, but we must look at other market-based means to give added assurance that our policies are an instrument of job creation, economic progress, and environmental problem solving."

[Perdogg]

Did you actually read the speech?

[John123]

Thanks for playing, John, but you're not the solution to the energy problem.

LOL!

[FastCoyote]

[Alcohol fuels made from corn, sugar, switch grass and many other sources, fuel cells, biodiesel derived from waste products, natural gas, and other technologies are all promising and available alternatives to oil.]

Here’s a thought. Maybe we should vet our presidential nominees BEFORE we give them the nomination instead of after they’ve been shoved down our throats. I don’t know, just a suggestion.

[FastCoyote]

[Actually he is calling for more nuclear energy, would obama do that?]

Choke! Gasp! I think this is the first time I’ve EVER agreed with a single thing you’ve said Dane.

[Eva]

I like your historical perspective on the election. I’ve been looking at from a more personal point of view. I’m in a battle for private property rights with the enviro-nazis, here in WA., and if I were to back John McCain, I would lose all credibility.

Just say no to John McCain.(He’s going to lose anyway)

[mysterio]

Any President that doesn’t work tirelessly to convert us to a high capacity nuclear power grid nationwide is going to sink our nation. I like that McCain mentioned nuclear, but that’s not enough. It is going to have to be pushed through quickly and implemented within a decade. That is going to take some passion.

[DoughtyOne]

You and I both have to hold back our criticism. Folks either get it or they don’t. That doesn’t mean they aren’t conservative. It just means they don’t understand how it will play out with McCain in there.

I’ve been jumping people too. Don’t take it personal.

[DoughtyOne]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974762/posts?page=6#6

[DoughtyOne]

When post six sinks in I’ll move on Dane. I’m sure you see no problem with that rhetoric.

[Perdogg]

What inevitable catastrophe is coming? 2012 - The End of the Mayan Calendar??