His big plan is Cap and Trade, To deal with a fictitious problem that is nothing more than a scam to scare the masses into complete control of every aspect of our lives. John McCain's Cap And Trade Policy:
John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.
BULLSHIT His plan is a ponzi scheme that Al Gore and Ken Lay would be proud of. His plan would destroy what is left of Federalism (states rights). This proposal will also destroy whats left of the auto industry, the oil industry, they coal industry, the trucking industry, and the Airline industry. Not to mention the massive job losses this Bill and proposal would cause. Most of which in those industries are Union jobs. All 3 of the idiots running for President support this type of plan.
The only thing I will enjoy over the next 4 to 8 years is watching those Union jobs go the way of the American Steel worker. Somehow even that joy won't make up for the misery the US is about to suffer.
Cap and Trade, and fake Man Made Global Warming smothers growth, destroys industry and places government control over every aspect of our lives and our economy right down to the breath we exhale.
A Costly Proposition
These measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions.
The world has already witnessed the unpleasant effects of such policies with the Kyoto protocols.
In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions. Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.
The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud. None other than Enron's Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative." These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business. Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade--often at public expense--are not.
By limiting the supply of fossil fuels, S. 2191 would raise the cost of energy. For consumers, cap and trade means more expensive gasoline and electricity as well as net job losses in energy-dependent sectors. Senator Lieberman himself concedes costs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, such energy cost increases act as a regressive tax on the poor.
Little Environmental Gain
While the costs of aggressive cap and trade proposals are substantial, the environmental benefits are suspect. This is true even if one fully accepts the claim of man-made global warming. The most ambitious measure to date is the Kyoto Protocol, but even if the U.S. were a party to this treaty and the European nations and other signatories were in full compliance (most are unlikely to meet their targets), the treaty would reduce the Earth's future temperature by an estimated 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050--an amount too small even to verify. S. 2191 would at best do only a little more.
And for those who are interested here are 100 Scientists that sent a letter back in December to the UN saying this was a fake issue I know there are those that will say that this group are just the kooks. Well there are some pretty Impressive letters after those names and even if you disagree with them you can't claim the Debate over this fake problem is settled.