McCain's Nuclear Waste

How the Arizona senator doomed his own global warming legislation with billions in nuclear subsidies.

Tue March 4, 2008 12:00 AM PST
On January 9, 2003—five years before he would become the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee—Senator John McCain strode to the Senate floor and began a speech by citing the National Academy of Sciences: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." He then pointed to a host of scientific studies that had outlined the negative consequences of global warming. "The United States must do something," he proclaimed, announcing that he and Senator Joseph Lieberman were introducing legislation that day to establish mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and set up a system for the trading of emissions credits.
story continues below
story continued from above

Environmental groups endorsed the McCain-Lieberman bill, which compelled major industries to reduce greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010. The League of Conservation Voters called it "a relatively modest reduction" but an "important first step" that would "send an important signal to the global community." It was indeed the first serious attempt in the Senate to impose a cap on global warming emissions.

Ten months later, the bill was defeated by a relatively close margin, 55 to 43. (Then-Senator John Edwards, who missed the vote, had indicated he supported the bill.) Environmental advocates in Washington considered this a decent start considering that six years earlier the Senate had voted unanimously for a nonbinding resolution that signaled opposition to the Kyoto global warming treaty. With this bill, McCain established himself as the undisputed Republican leader on climate change. Convinced that global warming had already led to more droughts and wildfires in his home state of Arizona, McCain vowed to keep fighting for the measure. But within a year and a half, McCain would lose ground and set back the effort to reduce emissions because of a profound political miscalculation, his own stubbornness, and, most of all, his deep attachment to nuclear power.

About a year after their bill was defeated, McCain and Lieberman began drafting a new version. It was close to the original, but with one significant addition: billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry.

McCain had long been an advocate of nuclear power. "He feels strongly that nuclear power will be one of the keys to reducing emissions," says Heather Wicke, who was his environmental legislative aide at the time. But environmentalists who had worked with McCain and Lieberman on the first bill were stunned. In one meeting, lobbyists for environmental groups attempted to persuade McCain not to attach nuclear subsidies to the legislation, arguing that doing so would weaken support for the bill. "He shook his finger at us and scolded us," says one participant at the meeting, who recalls McCain saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." Wicke, now the director of policy for the Piedmont Environmental Council, notes that McCain had already made up his mind and that the session was "testy."

In meetings with McCain's staff, environmental lobbyists argued the obvious points, according to Karen Wayland, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council: what to do with nuclear waste, the need to prevent nuclear proliferation, the problem with security at nuclear facilities. They noted that legislation restricting greenhouse emissions in and of itself would create a competitive advantage for nuclear energy companies. They made no headway, so the enviros appealed to Lieberman and his staff. "Lieberman didn't seem to care for this provision," one of the green lobbyists remembers, "but he needed McCain, and McCain was pushing hard" for the nuclear subsidies.

Part of McCain's motivation was political. According to Wicke, he and his aides figured that these subsidies could attract several pro-nuclear Republicans, and they had their eyes on Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Senator Liddy Dole of North Carolina. Wicke was concerned at the time that the nuclear subsidies would cost the measure support and that a bill loaded with money for the nuclear energy industry would contradict McCain's high-profile opposition to subsidies—which was partly responsible for his reputation as a fiscal conservative and a maverick. In June 2003, McCain had joined 47 other senators to vote for an amendment stripping an energy bill of up to $16 billion in subsidies for the nuclear power industry. (The amendment lost by a two-vote margin.)

Wicke heard from staffers for several senators who had supported McCain and Lieberman's original bill that these senators might oppose the measure if the new version contained nuclear subsidies. "It made me nervous," she recalls. But McCain remained firm in his belief that the billions for nuclear power would draw in more Republicans.

In May 2005, McCain and Lieberman reintroduced their climate change bill—with the subsidies. McCain acknowledged that "friends" in the environmental movement were opposed to the nuclear provision. He spoke at length in the Senate to defend this part of the bill: "The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position.... I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.... I am a green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."

His friends were not persuaded. While the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation continued to support McCain, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and others mounted a fierce campaign against the new bill. On June 22, 2005, it came up for a vote and was defeated 60 to 38. Several Democratic senators who had backed McCain's original legislation—Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)—defected, and McCain picked up no new Republicans. (Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted for it.) "The staff didn't fully appreciate how much opposition there would be to the nuclear provision," Wicke says, adding, "I could say it was a bit of miscalculation.... It did stymie this climate change legislation." After collecting 44 supporters for the first bill, McCain had lost ground.

Sometime after the vote, the NRDC's Wayland attended a meeting McCain held with representatives of environmental organizations. McCain was unapologetic about his decision to tie his climate change measure to nuclear power subsidies. "He said that environmentalists had lost power and influence because they did not support nuclear power," Wayland recalls, "and that renewables would never be more than 1 or 2 percent of the active energy supplies. I tried to argue with him and got nowhere. It was hard to a get a word in edgewise." After the meeting an upset Wayland, engaging in retail therapy, headed to a store and bought several pairs of shoes.

In January 2007, McCain and Lieberman again introduced their climate change bill, and the nuclear subsidies remained in the bill. (Public Citizen estimated the subsidies would run to at least $3.7 billion.) But in fall of 2007, the McCain-Lieberman bill was eclipsed by legislation introduced by Lieberman and Republican Senator John Warner. This bill called for deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions—though not as great as many scientists advocated—and it contained no special subsidies for nuclear power. The Lieberman-Warner measure immediately became the major piece of pending climate change legislation in the Senate. McCain and his bill were essentially out of the picture. He was, at the time, busy campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination.

"To his credit, he was a leader in the Republican Party on climate change," Wayland says. But by pushing breaks for nuclear power, McCain damaged a cause he had been passionately advocating for, leaving this particular battlefield with self-inflicted wounds.

Photo of John McCain at a December rally by flickr user marcn used under a Creative Commons license.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.
Comments
no profile pic for comment author

McCain is a walking talking contradiction. It is illegal and torture, but does not vote for its ban. Talked against Bush tax cuts, now seeks to make them permanent. McCain is two-faced. Straight Talk McCain has come to a fork in the road.

no profile pic for comment author

McCain doesn't stand a chance if he opens the Karl Rove playbook and throws attack ads against the Democratic candidate. He lives in a glass house (as anyone can see).

no profile pic for comment author

It seems that nuclear power plants do not even save on green house gas emissions as the number of nuclear plants increases rapidly. Google "Nuclear Cannibals" to read a summary of the latest science study.

no profile pic for comment author

Nuclear power would free us from oil
interests and help us environmentally; so maybe it is those that oppose the nuclear solution should rethink their opposition until they find a better option.

no profile pic for comment author

Anyone who thinks nuclear is clean should visit the Navajo Reservation and one of the hundreds of uranium mine tailings piles that is poisoning their livestock, and them, and causing all kinds of debilitating illnesses.

They should visit the supposed nuclear waste storage "dump" at Yucca Mountain and observe first hand all the water seeping in, the large cracks in the walls, and remember that a huge earthquake just happened about 100 miles from a place where we're proposing to store stuff that's supposed to be dangerous for 20,000 years!

I'd like you to figure out just how in the world you plan to transport all those spent fuel rods from wherever they are to wherever they're going - safely!

And then I'd like you to explain why most of the nuclear "accidents" have been the result of HUMAN ERROR - something that isn't likely to change. In fact - when the nuclear plant in Florida shut down automatically - like it was supposed to - all the talking heads on Fox News were calling for someone's head because all the "poor Floridians were inconvenienced" by the lights being off for a few hours. Which leads to pressure on the workers to override the controls. Which equals nuclear accident. Chernobyl anyone?

Nuclear energy is not clean.
Coal is not clean.
Natural gas is not clean.
Oil is not clean.
Ethanol is not clean.

no profile pic for comment author

McCain is a seriously cracked nut. I don't understand why this guy is getting votes unless it is the sheep that vote republican regardless. "Stupid is as stupid does."
Both McCain and Lieberman kissed Bush. What does that tell you?

Mr. Corn,
I was under the impression that the Lieberman-Warner bill is one of the classic misnomers. America's climate Security Act S.2191.
There is an article and a petition that tells about the estimated $500 BILLION this bill would be generating towards more nuclear power. It is described as a stepping stone to the building of more subsidies and plants. Some have called it the coal subsidies act. None of which sounds good.
You can Google Progress Ohio Lieberman-Warner for a link. There is also a link to others protesting the bill from NIRS and Friends of the Earth.

You pointed out that Clinton and Obama voted for McCain's bill in '05 and that to me is very telling. Either these two are just ignorant or that they are tools for corporate interests.

When I read Lieberman's name on America's Climate Security Act I knew that it demanded closer scrutiny.

no profile pic for comment author

McCain would be at least as bad as Bush, if he were elected president, because of the similar "royal" mindset -- the unassailable conviction that only he has the answers.

In fact, McCain would also be as bad as Ralph Nader, in that office. Neither of them has a clue about working with others, and is hated by so many, on both sides.

no profile pic for comment author

David,
I thought the Warner/Lieberman bill originally included $52 billion in guaranteed loans for new andc expanded nucleat power plants and Pete Dominici was the chief advocate for such subsidies in McCain's place. Dominici is not running again, thank goodness. When the $52 billion was stripped from that bill, Dominici tried to get amend the Farm Bill to include incedntives for nuclear power generation, didn't he. McCain probably would have supported that amendment.

no profile pic for comment author

We will never be free from oil. The oil companies will never release their hold on oil and on our economy. Corporate Presidents like Bush, will see to that. We will always protect their interest by sending American soldiers to fight in foreign lands always using the same excuse. "In our national interest".

no profile pic for comment author

Senator McCain is just another George W. Bush and we Americans are totally fed up to the eyeballs with the LIES of Bush and Company. And we don't need another BUSH in the White House period.

no profile pic for comment author

It has always puzzled me why new products are placed on the market before a solution to the hazards they bring on to society is found. A case in point: nuclear energy. A way should have been found to neutralize nuclear waste before the first nuclear bomb or plant was built.

no profile pic for comment author

If I get George's job in November, McCain will never serve another day in public office. And, that's being nice about it.

Bert08

no profile pic for comment author

This guys stubborn streak is self defeating. Like the 1000lb. bomb on a plane with the capacity for 500lb. Square key for round key hole,he is not all their. I'am not a shrink,just an old mans view .

no profile pic for comment author

Want to get free of America's bondage to big oil? Want to get rid of the pollution of vehicle emissions, power plant emissions, factories buring fuel oil, houses buring fuel oil?

I suggest that we build hundreds of nuclear power plants immediately just like France. They are dealing with waste. So can we. (I suggest we use the Space Shuttle to launch spent nuclear rods directly at the sun. Go ahead, laugh. Let's hear your creative solution, not your NIMBY excuses.)

Make electricty so cheap that every car, truck and bus runs on clean quiet electric motors, not gas. Make electricity so cheap that every factory is heated with electricity, not oil. Make electricity so cheap that every house is heated and cooled with electricity, not oil or gas.

It's time for environmentalists to get their heads out of the (sand), forget the tired battle cries of the 60s, and talk about solutions that work, not just whine about what doesn't.

Unless of course you want to give up your car, your house, your computer and everything else that runs on or is powered by oil.

(They say that generals are always fighting the last war. I think environmentalists are always singing the last protest song.)

no profile pic for comment author

If everything is dirty, what do you suggest ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

no profile pic for comment author

Our economy is dependent on an ever-increasing use of energy. It only takes 3 feet of water to protect me from a used nuclear fuel rod; that's a lot safer than the UV radiation and other harmful byproducts created by the processing of fuels from oil, coal, shale, corn, etc. The rest of the 1st world has been aggressively adopting and improving nuclear technology. We are 20 years behind. The “China Syndrome” is a thing of the past. Have no fear of atomic energy. None of us can stop the time. Educate the public and assuage their fears. Allow the construction of modern nuclear plants. IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE.

no profile pic for comment author

The French glassify nuclear waste to make it stable for centries, but we will never do that because it increases costs about 5% more to glassify waste.
Nuke's OK, but we have to buy the Uranium from India or other unstable countries. Arnie doesn't like nuclear power.

no profile pic for comment author

Dear Sirs,

While I applaud your efforts to make the planet a cleaner place and to try to stop the earth warning if that's what you believe.

However ...I am fed up with your bull headed stance on drilling and building new Nuclear power plants.

When the economy goes into a full blown recession I sincerely hope you all go with it!

Walter R Dixon

age 71 retiree living on a fixed income.

DRILL HERE DRILL NOW!

no profile pic for comment author

The American environmental lobby needs to read some science journals. Seriously, you've become the "flat earth" society.

You look to Europe for clean energy policies and somehow miss how Europe is nuclear heavy. Its carbon free!

Nuclear energy would allow us to plug in our commuter cars into the grid removing all the emissions from all of our commuter traffic and ridding our country of dependence on foreign oil.

Its time to wake up. This isnt the 1970's. Nuclear energy has evolved into the cleanest energy on earth.

no profile pic for comment author

Let's not forget McGoo's rhetoric on "supporting the troops", but then votes AGAINST Sen. Webb's GI Bill.....this in one I will never forget as something McGoo talking the talk, but forgeting how to walk the talk

no profile pic for comment author

If McRadiactive is all for Nuclear power and Nuclear waste then lets build all 40 Nuclear power plants and nuclear waste disposal plants in Arizona. Maybe this is why McSenile is loosing his brain and body parts. He was overexposed to Radiation.

no profile pic for comment author

You left wing goof balls will be the down fall of this nation. The reason Russia had a nuclear crisis, is because the plant was built and run by Russians.

no profile pic for comment author

Oh really?
Than what exactly do you suggest we do? Considering we're in an energy crisis and no other alternative energy source is clean or can produce enough energy without taking up miles of land that we can't provide... what do you think is a better idea?
Chernobyl happened once... I'm not sure if you're aware but we have many nuclear power plants all over and I'd love for you to tell me how many times they've had a melt down. I understand the emmission that nuclear power plants give have a halflife of thousands of years, but really, the effects of coal and oil would ruin the world's atmosphere before nuclear power would.

no profile pic for comment author

It's interestiong reading this article as a student participating in the NFL (National Forensics League) because I now see that McCain is a template on how not to debate. In a debate you have to be consistent and if you are going to change a policy or a way your leening you have to make it clear or YOU WILL be called out on it. McCain consistently doesn't seem to understand this.

no profile pic for comment author

this may be months later but dan i love you

no profile pic for comment author

Anybody that lives here on Long Island(NY) over the last 20 years, can surely recall the disastrous attempt at building and running a power plant by then LILCO. There is still the NIMBY effect ALL over the country. Millions and millions of dollars later, we have an empty power plant..the enviromentalists won their battle to keep it from ever going on line. What makes MCain make such rediculous statements? Who do you think will pay for these plants, and in who's backyard will they be?? Any answers?

no profile pic for comment author

MCCAIN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY NUCLEAR GUYS. HE IS NOT A HERO !! HE IS A DISGRACE TO REAL VETERANS. HE HAS MADE A FORTUNE DOING ALL THE FAVORS FOR SUBSIDIES TO NUCLEAR. RADIATION KILLS FOREVER.

no profile pic for comment author

wedew

How's China printing industry developed this years, who can tell us?
Professional printing company produce finest printing products, like books, flyers, labels...
Wuxi Grand printing service company from China with top quality and best price.
China based plastic injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality, you may contact us of our plastic jar today!
plastic cap widely used for drinking water bottles and juices and beverages packing industries...
Steel and aluminum scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.
We all know printing services in China is very cheap.
plastic bucket in China has very competitive price and good quality.
Professional plastic bottle through plastic blow molding process in complicated.
injection molded parts products are widely used in our daily lifes.
江苏羽毛球网 folder gluer paper cutter sofa door hardware

no profile pic for comment author

Flash Editor is a powerful

Flash Editor is a powerful flash Flash editing software to edit flash files. You can trim Flash, merge Flash, split Flash, replace Flash audio, add metadata and cue point, etc.FLV Editor,FLV Joiner,

Post a comment
Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options


Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com

Mother Jones Podcast
Get in on the conversation! We talk about culture, politics, the environment, the economy and more. Listen now!

TalkBackTees.com
A treasure trove of liberal wit, wisdom and quotations, from ancient to modern, on colorful, cotton tees.

Support Independent Artists
Amazing art, crafts, apparel, paper-goods and more. A carefully curated selection of sundries since 1999.

FREE CONNECTIONS FOR GREEN SINGLES
Meet progressive singles in the environmental, vegetarian & animal rights community who share your values