McCain Warming to Climate Bill
By Juliet Eilperin
Sen. John McCain indicated Friday that he is closer to voting in favor of a bill limiting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The presumptive GOP nominee didn't say for sure that he would vote for the bill, authored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), both of whom have campaigned actively for him. But McCain said they were coming closer to satisfying his concerns about the bill. The measure, slated for a vote in early June, does not boast the same generous subsidies for nuclear power as previous bills.
"I'm pleased in negotiations and discussion with Senator Lieberman that there will be a far more important nuclear component of this legislation that's going to be coming to the floor," McCain said in a news conference at Jersey City's Liberty Science Center. "I hope that it will be passed, and I hope that the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the president of the United States would sign it."
McCain has repeatedly pushed hard for nuclear power as one of the primary ways the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions and reduce its energy dependence on foreign countries. But several Senate Democrats, who back the idea of a mandatory cap on carbon emissions, oppose providing new subsidies for building nuclear power plants.
McCain advocates cutting U.S. carbon emissions 60 percent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, while the Lieberman-Warner bill would cut them by nearly 70 percent by mid-century. Both Democratic Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) support the bill, though they advocate a more ambitious reduction goal of 80 percent by 2050.
The question of how drastically the United States should limit its carbon emissions does not appear to be a sticking point for McCain, and Lieberman said in an interview yesterday he believed his friend would back the bill once it reaches the floor next month.
"I'm confident that he is going to support the bill," Lieberman said, adding that the two men had discussed the matter Friday morning and that their aides were continuing to work out details of the legislation's nuclear provision.
Posted at 11:39 PM ET on May 9, 2008
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: TheGreenMiles | May 10, 2008 1:50 PM
Cutting carbon emissions by 60 percent seems more realistic than gunning for 80 percent. Barack and Hillary are going in a little over their heads with that number. The fact that McCain is even pushing for reduction of emissions at all is more than Bush has ever done for the environment.
Posted by: GregB | May 10, 2008 1:27 PM
In the words of our most evil of vice presidents, the blustery warmongering, hell-bound Darth Cheney, so?
I could care less what John McCain thinks or does about the environment. He'll be dead before the ice caps melt.
Posted by: jeffp | May 10, 2008 12:54 PM
Why are we so afraid of nuclear power? Oh, I'm not sure. Why don't you ask Wall Street? They haven't been willing to invest in it since the 80's. That's why the last two energy bills have included massive public subsidies. Even with those and the promotion of the Bush Administration for the last seven years there is still no plant that has broken ground. A new plant is estimated to cost $12 billion - and that's before the obligatory cost overruns. There are just a lot of other cheaper ways to generate electricity, many of which, like wind or solar or energy conservation measures, don't add greenhouse gases and none of which generate nuclear wastes that are hazardous for inconceivably long periods of time. Other than that, nuclear power is great.
Posted by: Chuck | May 10, 2008 9:56 AM
Why are we still so afraid of nuclear power?
Posted by: Vance McDaniel | May 10, 2008 6:28 AM
McCain Warming to Climate Bill
This is a crucial concern that has been for a while. To cut the carbon emmission in the air could improve our health a great deal. We need to curtail our dependancy on foreign oil, as that would save thousands of lives and help our economy as well. If we would allocate our undivided time on this concern, I am sure that an expediate cap date would manifest as a result. It would be great if this bill would pass the floor, yet once it does, we don't need to let it set up and collect dust. We need to start to work on a protocol to support it with an effective conclusion. We have other forms of obtaining fuel, we just needs to once the bill is passed 'stick to our guns' until the matter is fully accommodated. Through the years, I understand that there have been much talk on this concern, but to no avail have the end and beneficial results manifested. Whatever timeframe tends to be in the air for the cap date, whether it be a decade, hopefully not a century, then, that would be what we must adhere to in making it happen.
Posted by: Nisey01 | May 10, 2008 5:35 AM
LOL! By 2050! There is just NO WAY that could EVER be Amended or Modified! :-D
Posers!
We'll be in an Ice Age by then! And that, Might just change EVERYTHING! ;~)
Now, why does that Jew-Boy's Bill, smell like Pork?
Posted by: RAT-The | May 9, 2008 11:44 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
So Lieberman and McCain are behind the bill ... where's the third amigo, Graham?