McCain calls for energy efficient government

Ron Burgundy · 06-24-2008, 05:11 PM

AP - Republican John McCain said Tuesday the federal government should practice the energy efficiency he preaches, pledging as president to switch official vehicles to green technologies and do the same for office buildings.

Expanding upon his ideas to address the nation's energy crisis, the Arizona senator also called for a redesign of the national power grid so power is better distributed where it's needed and the country has the capacity to run electric vehicles that he wants automakers to supply.

"Our federal government is never shy about instructing the American people in good environmental practice. But energy efficiency, like charity, should begin at home," McCain said before conducting an energy round-table at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

McCain drives a 2003 Cadillac CTS, a sedan the Environmental Protection Agency says gets 16 to 24 miles per gallon and emits about 9.6 tons of greenhouse gases annually. When campaigning, he's ferried by the Secret Service using a fleet of Chevrolet Suburbans, a full-size SUV the EPA estimates gets 12 to 20 mpg and emits 9 to 13 tons of greenhouse gases.

Among those on the panel was Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain backer who opposes a major element of the candidate's energy strategy ending a decades-old federal ban on offshore drilling. McCain has said he would leave the decision to the states if the moratorium is lifted.

"John and I both know we can protect our environment and our economy at the same time," Schwarzenegger said in his opening remarks. He did not mention offshore drilling.

"I have every confidence that once Senator McCain is in the White House, America will get back in the game when it comes to a sensible, consistent and forward-looking energy policy," Schwarzenegger added.

Offshore drilling is particularly sensitive in this coastal community 100 miles north of Los Angeles. Oil derricks are visible on the horizon, as are sailboats and the Channel Islands. Some local residents remember a 1969 oil spill that happened after an oil platform blew out six miles offshore.

It dumped an estimated 3 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean, some of which reached area beaches.

Despite emphasizing the optional nature of his proposal, McCain has heard complaints about it throughout his two days of campaigning in California, a Democratic-leaning state that the GOP hopes to put in play in the general election.

"No drill, no spill, no kill," said a sign held aloft by several dozen protesters outside McCain's speech.

"We're really kind of goosey here about oil spills, and we're goosey here about federal drilling and oil lands, which are abundant offshore," Dan Secord, a member of the California Coastal Commission, told McCain during a Santa Barbara fundraiser Monday night. McCain acknowledged offshore drilling would do little to immediately lower record gasoline prices, but he argued that the specter of additional supply would undercut speculation that has driven the cost to more than $4 a gallon.

"Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial," the senator said during a town-hall meeting in Fresno.

Obama criticized McCain's claim of a psychological benefit as political posturing.

"In case you're wondering, in Washington-speak what that means is it polls well. It's an example of how Washington tries to convince you that they've done something to make your life better when they really didn't," said Obama, who was campaigning in Las Vegas.

"The American people don't need psychological relief or meaningless gimmicks ... they need real relief that will help them fill up their tanks and put food on the table."

During his round-table discussion, McCain received some of the straight talk for which he has a reputation.

Michael Feeney, executive director of the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, was unyielding in his criticism of McCain's call for building 45 nuclear power plants and drilling offshore.

"I don't understand how it's not compromising our environmental standards to propose a crash program to build more nuclear power plants, when the industry has not complied with the federal law that requires the safe disposal for the radioactive waste," Feeney said.

Instead of drilling more, he said, "I personally think we should be saving, as much as possible, the oil resources of this country, because we're going to need those for a long, long time to come."

In his latest proposal, McCain noted the federal government buys 60,000 nonmilitary and non-law enforcement vehicles a year.

McCain also calculated there are about 3.3 billion square feet of federal office space. Lighting and cooling that space makes the federal government the nation's single largest consumer of electricity, he said.

In talking about the energy grid, he called for expanded use of SmartMeters, which give customers a more precise picture of their overall energy consumption. The senator said they would, over time, encourage a more cost-efficient use of power.

During his two-day California swing, McCain was holding fundraisers that were expected to generate $3.5 million for his campaign. McCain's regional finance director told an audience at a Riverside fundraiser that during the past 60 days, the campaign had raised $11.5 million in the state.

___

On the Net:

http://www.johnmccain.com

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy [link]

Rouger2 · 06-24-2008, 06:50 PM

It is a very good idea for government to build energy efficient buildings and change the old ones to energy efficient buildings as they can afford it. Buying high milage vehicles another good Idea. I've always thought they should have done this a long time ago. Why the dingbats haven't I don't know. We need to start doing what we can now. Right now.

6SpeedTA95 · 06-24-2008, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

It is a very good idea for government to build energy efficient buildings and change the old ones to energy efficient buildings as they can afford it. Buying high milage vehicles another good Idea. I've always thought they should have done this a long time ago. Why the dingbats haven't I don't know. We need to start doing what we can now. Right now.

The governemtn can "afford it"

You mean in addition to what looks to be a 290 billion dollar deficit for FY2008? They can't afford shit, we're the ones that have to pay for it. If they want new construction to be green thats fine, but retrofitting buildings because they can somehow afford it just flat wrong. I'd much rather have them give tax incentives or 100% rebates for dollar spent on us making our homes green on other ways.

Rouger2 · 06-24-2008, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The governemtn can "afford it"

You mean in addition to what looks to be a 290 billion dollar deficit for FY2008? They can't afford shit, we're the ones that have to pay for it. If they want new construction to be green thats fine, but retrofitting buildings because they can somehow afford it just flat wrong. I'd much rather have them give tax incentives or 100% rebates for dollar spent on us making our homes green on other ways.

I said afford because I know they cannot jump in with billions of dollars but they can start with something they are spending millions of new money on other things when we don't have the money put a few million on the start of greening government buildings. It is very importand very important that we stop using so much energy. We need to work at every possibility. This is one way we can save a whole bunch we just need to give it a little start. The govenment has to buy vehicles, buy some that will get over 14 miles per gallon.

6SpeedTA95 · 06-24-2008, 10:41 PM

How about we increase supplies of domestic energy? Or let the people have some of their tax dollars back in the form of green incentives? That'd make a far bigger difference than the government planting some shrubs on the roof of a few federal buildings and it would be far far cheaper to let the free market do it vs the government contracting it out so some overpaid union guy.

Rouger2 · 06-25-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

How about we increase supplies of domestic energy? Or let the people have some of their tax dollars back in the form of green incentives? That'd make a far bigger difference than the government planting some shrubs on the roof of a few federal buildings and it would be far far cheaper to let the free market do it vs the government contracting it out so some overpaid union guy.

Will increasing supply, which in US would not amount to much, keep us trying to stay dependent on oil. Oil is the most efficient form of energy and cheapest, but it is going to end so let us bite the bullet and work to bring in the more expensive forms of energy that will make us poorer but allow us to survive.

A_C_E · 06-25-2008, 01:25 PM

The first thing they should be doing is replacing their vehicle fleets with hybrids. I know my mom's suped-up government Chevy Blazer isn't exactly environmentally friendly

I know they only re-invest in American automakers, so things like the Prius are obviously out. But Ford makes the Escape/Mariner hybrid SUVs, which at last check got better than 30 mpg.

Imagine how much cash and pollution we would save if we converted the tens of thousands of Blazers and Explorers the government owns into Escape hybrids. An extra 15 mpg over 70,000 vehicles? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

motivez · 06-25-2008, 02:49 PM

Interesting question for libertarians .. Should tax money spent on government vehicles go back into the pockets of American companies only, or should they look into which vehicle is the "best" for their cause even if it's a foreign company?

DosEquis · 06-26-2008, 01:54 AM

it can be argued that investment in 'green' energy efficient government vehicles and buildings would actually save us money in the long run. They are buying less fuel for the vehicles, and paying less on the light bill.

I would just want to see a realistic study on how much it would save vs. how much it costs, and how long it would take to pay for itself.

A_C_E · 06-26-2008, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

it can be argued that investment in 'green' energy efficient government vehicles and buildings would actually save us money in the long run. They are buying less fuel for the vehicles, and paying less on the light bill.

I would just want to see a realistic study on how much it would save vs. how much it costs, and how long it would take to pay for itself.

Does it really matter how long it would take to pay for itself?

Whether it's 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years, the US government isn't exactly going anywhere.