McCain Versus Sustainable Energy Independence

(9 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Crossposted to Agent Orange … please help make Susan Kraemer’s good work on this more visible. And click through to the article on the original site, vote it up and leave comments, so her boss knows that her hard work is appreciated.

I just read up on John McCain’s 50 Votes Against Clean Energy, on the MatteR Network⁽¹⁾.

The take home message is really straightforward. The only energy sector that John McCain supports is Nuclear Power. When a “clean”⁽²⁾ vote comes up for any Sustainable Energy Source, McCain’s position is simple: He’s Agin It.

It seems that the claim at the DNC that McCain voted against Renewable Power 25 times has been attacked by a fact checking web site, so what Susan Kraemer has done is go through 50 votes, and the picture is that of one of the dirtiest Sustainable Energy voting records in the Senate:

Summary

McCain voted with Boxer 1 out of 50 times – against signing the Kyoto protocol (vote 14). McCain voted with Inhofe 42 out of 44 times unless Inhofe voted with Boxer (see votes 34 and 35). McCain voted with Republicans unless the majority 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.

The full tally is 37 votes against, and, during his current run for the White House, Missing 13 times on bills where he has stated opposition.

The Take-Home message is: on Sustainable Energy, John McCain is Inhofe’s twin, and Boxer’s opposite.

OK, so why does this matter?

For supporters of domestically generated Sustainable Renewable Power in its own right, whether for its impact on Energy Independence or its impact on the Climate Crisis or both, that’s all that need be said.

But for people focusing on other policy areas, I do want to note the relationship between domestically generated Sustainable Renewable Power and the current rampant militarism that has been amplifying the worst imperialistic tendencies of U.S. Foreign Policy since WWII.

Why are US forces focusing Half of the global military budget on Iraq? Because Iraq is producing millions of barrels a day of crude oil, and could be producing millions of barrels a day more.

And under the crude jingoism of current US Foreign Policy, the fact that a country has some of that there oil that we want is a causus belli … sufficient reason to go to war.

Now, in terms of pandering to the crude militarism that infects the US foreign policy establishment and that informs the press coverage of even the supposed “high toned” coverage, the difference between the rival campaigns to actually become President and Vice President is a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

But in terms of their position in eliminating US Oil Dependence as a driving force for deploying the US military, the two rival campaigns are at pole positions. The position of the Republican campaign is to stick with oil until we have tapped every last drop we can find, supplement it with nuclear power, and fend off public support for sustainable renewable power with spin and lip service. The position of the Democratic campaign is to pursue expansion of sustainable renewable power.

On a completely unrelated matter … except not

If we can find a way to resolve the ecological problem of bat kills, there are substantial renewable Wind Energy resources at ridge and mountain top locations across Appalachia, including West Virginia.

Except if we blow up those ridges and mountain tops in order to address the increasing difficulty in mining coal, that can easily permanently destroy part of that sustainable power source. That is the case at Coal River in West Virgina. Go to Coal River Mountain Watch for more information, and thanks to Patriot Daily for his essay here at Docudharma, Take Action: Wind Farms Can Save Mountain.

Notes

(1. I have never run across MatteR before, but I have already bookmarked it future reference)

(2. I mean “clean” here in the legislative sense of not riding on or being ridden by some other legislation on some unrelated matter)