Reason #762,917 To Vote For A Democratic President

Exxon Mobil made more money than everyone in your city will make in their entire lives last quarter:

Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $40.6 billion — on Friday as the world's biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from historic crude prices at the end of the year.

Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007, beating its own mark of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005.

I don't believe in a windfall profits tax, but these oil companies continue to get tax breaks to unburden them from the strain of having to pay the federal government to take oil out of its ground. That's a function of corporate hegemony in the age of conservatism. And it's not likely to change at all under either Mitt Romney or John McCain. After saying in last week's Presidential debate that he agreed with the Republican governor of California that states should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, Romney - and you're not going to believe this - flip-flopped.

But Romney didn’t want to side with the environment for too long. The AP reports that “[a]fter the debate,” — and after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — “Romney’s campaign issued a statement in which he said that the federal government, not individual states, should set limits on carbon emissions.”

Romney’s alleged support of California’s emissions waiver is further discredited by the fact that on Jan. 4, he was skeptical of states’ efforts in an interview with the Detroit News Editorial Board:

"[The energy bill] does maintain the distinction between light trucks and automotive (standards), which is encouraging, although it leaves open the door to states putting in place tougher standards and the EPA putting in place additional regulations."

And it's not like Straight Talk McCain is any better than Multiple Choice Mitt on this issue.

In reality, McCain is far from an environmental champion. The League of Conservation Voters gives him a lifetime score of just 26 percent. While he may have been a co-sponsor of the first Senate bill calling for mandatory reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions way back in 2003, he hasn't kept up to speed on what legislation like that should look like. The 2007 version of his Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act is weaker than most others that have been offered up, calling for a cap at 2004 levels by 2012 and gradual reductions to 30 percent of 2004 levels by 2050. Current science tells us we need 80 percent reductions by 2050 to avert catastrophic warming, putting McCain's plan way behind the times. He also voted against a renewable portfolio standard in 2005 that would have required the U.S. to draw 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and though he used to be a major critic of ethanol, he flip-flopped on the issue when running in Iowa. To his credit, he does still say he opposes government subsidies for ethanol.

Most importantly, while he says climate change is one of his top three issues, he offers only a paltry agenda on the subject. In speeches, he promises to wean the nation off "foreign oil" and lead the country to energy independence, but there doesn't appear to be any plan backing those promises.

The Republican leaders are not to be believed to do anything meaningful on climate change. What we need are innovative solutions like the one proposed in California, which both Democratic candidates are well-positioned to offer:

California is pursuing new ideas to reduce vehicle emissions in the state after the U.S. EPA denied the state a waiver it needed to implement its vehicle greenhouse-gas emission standards. California lawmakers are expected to vote on a bill this week that would set up a "feebate" system for new car purchases. Excessively polluting vehicles would become more expensive to buy while the cost of buying efficient cars would fall. One-time fees of up to $2,500 would be charged for new inefficient vehicles like Hummers and Chevy Tahoes while cars like Civic and Prius hybrids could earn similarly large rebates. Vehicles that fall somewhere in the middle of the efficiency spectrum would either earn smaller dividends, require smaller fees, or remain unchanged. If the bill is approved, the state air board will decide which vehicles fall where on the fee/refund scale. Similar legislation failed to pass the state legislature last year, but the EPA's waiver slapdown has increased pressure on California lawmakers to approve other ways of reducing emissions.

Some say that, with McCain as the Republican nominee, climate change will be off the table. Don't bet on it.