I never have been enamored by McCain. In fact, his despicable joke about Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno years ago (when Chelsea was just a little girl) spoke volumes to me about his character. I have always viewed McCain a wolf in sheep's clothing and his support for the pResident only strengthens that view for me.
Posted by Kathy at September 27, 2004 01:22 AMHere's something Nature magazine put online 9/23/04. It will get some media play, treated as entertainment news like everything else, but not even Gore will try to put 5 meters of sea level rise into the election. (He and Move-On tried with gulf stream shutdown worries, stopped.)
Hope very much to be wrong.
google: "glaciers are flowing faster"
For Bushite and "opposition" attitude, see central a.c. regs struggle:
Use NY Times archive 4/14/01, or look at it pasted below for weapon Kerry has not used and likely will not use. (Not even Kucinich or Nader have mentioned.)
Current status of regs (and "struggle") is in NYT excerpt from 8/14/04 below that. (For court decision see 1/14/04).
New York Times
April 14, 2001
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/14/politics/14STAN.html
WASHINGTON, April 13 - The Bush administration said today that it would block a rule published in the last days of the Clinton administration requiring new central air-conditioners to be 30 percent more efficient than the current minimum and instead require that they be 20 percent more efficient.
In a statement that contrasted with President Bush's recent assertions that the nation faces an energy crisis, Spencer Abraham, the energy secretary, said energy conservation goals needed to be balanced against the need to minimize "future price increases on consumers, particularly low-income consumers."
The retail price difference between models meeting those standards is about $123, according to the Energy Department, for an appliance that generally costs $2,000 to $4,000. The extra cost is covered by the savings in energy over about 15 months of its 18-year average life, according to the department.
The industry's trade association had argued that 30 percent would be "a crushing burden" for some consumers, especially those who live in centrally air-conditioned mobile homes, because the more efficient machines are larger and would not fit. That problem would discourage people from moving to more efficient models, said Edward Dooley of the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute.
The idea that the standard should be weakened to protect the poor was attacked by supporters of the old standard, including Dan W. Reicher, an assistant secretary of energy in the Clinton administration who helped write it.
"There are about 100-plus million households in the U.S., with 15 million classified as low-income, but of those, only 1.6 million have central air-conditioners," Mr. Reicher said. "We're going to lose, over time, a major improvement in the efficiency of the air-conditioning fleet, to save $122 per household in less than 2 percent of the people's homes."
David Nemtzow, director of the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group, said, "Guess what, poor people don't buy central air-conditioners, they tend to live in rentals." If the rented house or apartment is air- conditioned, the air-conditioner is owned by the landlord, he said, and if it is more efficient, then the tenant's bill is lower.
A better group to worry about, Mr. Nemtzow said, was old people whose health would be threatened by summer blackouts, which are made more likely by too much electric demand and too few generating stations.
According to the Energy Department, the 20 percent improvement it now favors would eliminate the need for 27 power plants of 400 megawatts each, nationwide, by 2030. Mr. Abraham in his statement said that the result would be to "help dramatically reduce electricity demand during peak periods."
The 30 percent improvement would avoid the need for 39 such plants, according to the department.
State governments in New York, California and Texas, worried about meeting summer electricity demands, had supported the 30 percent standard. Those states could now ask the Energy Department for permission to enforce the 30 percent standard within their own borders.
The economic difference between the two rules, taking into account higher purchase price but lower operating costs, is that a 20 percent increase would save about $2 billion over the next 30 years, compared with about $1 billion for the 30 percent standard.
But energy experts inside the department and outside acknowledged that all the estimates may be significantly off. If the price of electricity in 2010 is different from projections by only a few percent, the balance of costs and benefits to consumers may be far different.
The industry was also divided concerning the issue; Goodman Manufacturing, which owns Amana and is the second-largest producer of central air-conditioners, favored the stricter standard.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said in a statement that the decision was "breathtaking in its cynicism."
"Since taking office, the president has used an `energy crisis' as justification to weaken environmental laws," he said.
Environmental groups rushed to criticize the decision, which they said would result in extra pollution from power plants. Some suggested that it was illegal, because the 1987 law that calls for standards forbids weakening them.
Energy Department officials said, however, that even though the rule had been published in the Federal Register, they had acted before it was scheduled to take effect - first with a 60-day delay on all rules, announced by Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, and now with a specific decision on the standard.
Under the Clinton rule, the "compliance date" - when the rule would affect sales - was 2006, to give manufacturers time to retool.
Technically, what the department did today was state its intention to propose a new standard. The Clinton standard was in the works for six years; it was not immediately clear how long a new one would take.
a.c. coverage from: Out of Spotlight, Bush Overhauls U.S. Regulations 8/14/04 NY Times:
"In a case involving air-conditioners, the Department of Energy announced in May 2002 that it would weaken a standard issued during the Clinton administration to make home air-conditioners more efficient. The department did order an efficiency increase, but less than had been mandated under Mr. Clinton. An Energy Department official said: "This is not a rollback. It is an increase" in efficiency.
Major air-conditioner manufacturers had lobbied against the improved efficiency standard, saying the new models would be unaffordable. Right away, the attorneys general from seven states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, filed suit to restore the old standard. In January of this year, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled that the Bush administration did not have the legal right to revise the efficiency."
Notice no mention of $123, 15 month payoff on 15-18 year $2-4,000 system, emphasis on "low income" consumer, etc. Kerry, noble leader of an energy task force in Spring 2001 never attacked on this that I saw, and is not attacking now on 30% of voting machines to be used Nov. 2nd having no paper trail.
Vote for Kerry, but who counts the vote is more important.
---
Well, not guessing many will read this, but I assume that McCain has made the following trade-off: he simply can't succeed as a Democrat for the same reason that party switchers generally can't go much higher than whatever rank they have at the time they switch. Plus, philosophically, he is to the right of most Democrats. OTOH, he can't succeed in changing the Republican party to whatever extent he wants it to change (and I think he does) unless he supports GWB at least a little bit more than just superficially. So that's his game. He's doing what he needs to do trying not to make too many personal compromises along the way but not doing anything that would offend the Republican establishment that he needs to rise higher than Senator.
Posted by Barbara at September 27, 2004 06:18 AMMcCain has shown himself for what he is, a political hack who is willing to sell his soul to the devil for personal gain. He could have sat back above the fray but instead chose to be part of the bushco dog and pony show.
Posted by Ron In Portland at September 27, 2004 07:24 AMNot a McCain apologist, but I think the extent to which he takes the high road depends on his long-term goals. If long-term goal is only to be Senator from Arizona, then you are spot on. I don't think that's his long-term goal however, so I think there's a lot political calculus (or hackdom) going on.
Posted by Barbara at September 27, 2004 07:42 AMBarbara
He still sold his soul to the devil making him just another political hack. In his case it's not going to work. He won't be able to get the real wingnut base and has lost independent support.
He's a Republican period. And he doesn't want to be a democrat. He's not our friend, McCain is Kerry's friend and that's a big difference. (Why else would he give Michael Moore free publicity while openly admitting he hadn't seen F9/11?)
When Kerry wins McCain, the moderates and True conservatives are going to make an effort to take some power. Will they get all of it? No but it will definitely be more than they have now. If Bush wins, McCain loses. He's not shilling for Bush because he trusts him. McCain believes in the Republican party. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Daryl at September 27, 2004 11:29 AMHe's a Republican period. And he doesn't want to be a democrat. He's not our friend, McCain is Kerry's friend and that's a big difference. (Why else would he give Michael Moore free publicity while openly admitting he hadn't seen F9/11?)
When Kerry wins McCain, the moderates and True conservatives are going to make an effort to take some power. Will they get all of it? No but it will definitely be more than they have now. If Bush wins, McCain loses. He's not shilling for Bush because he trusts him. McCain believes in the Republican party. Nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Daryl at September 27, 2004 11:31 AMAWOL/desertion? Half-trillion defecits? Ignoring Global Warning? Fucking up Iraq so more soldiers are killed unncesessarily? None of it matters.
The (R) after bush's name is all he needs to have McCain's undying loyalty. They deserve each other.
Posted by flatulus benjoya at September 27, 2004 02:22 PM