[TritteTouff]

Without a cap it isn't cap & trade.

[Hrennilasi]

But seriously, what the hell does he mean? As the link documents, he has exhibited this confusion before at least a few times...

[Emapymosy]

It'd be one thing for him to be lying about his policy (and he did put out policy to this effect, even if it handed out carbon credits instead of auctioning them). But this is completely incoherent. What does cap and trade without a cap actually mean?

[iodigmaFemZem]

That's a charitable explanation, but there are other times he has said something similar where that explanation doesn't make sense. For example:

It's not quote mandatory caps. It's cap-and-trade, OK. It's not mandatory caps to start with. It's cap-and-trade. That's very different. OK, because that's a gradual reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. So please portray it as cap-and-trade. That's the way I call it. Or:

Russert: Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps.

McCain: No, I'm in favor of cap-and-trade. And Joe Lieberman and I, one of my favorite Democrats and I, have proposed that -- and we did the same thing with acid rain.

And all we are saying is, "Look, if you can reduce your greenhouse gas emissions, you earn a credit. If somebody else is going to increase theirs, you can sell it to them." And, meanwhile, we have a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

And of course, that contradicts the policy that he put out just recently.

[Almolfuncomma]

It sounds like he is talking just the carrot, and not the stick.

[Deseassaugs]

It sounds like he is talking just the carrot, and not the stick. What's the carrot (in cap-and-trade minus cap)?

[Inenuedbabnor]

What's the carrot (in cap-and-trade minus cap)? The carrot is the credit (tax credit?) you would give someone for complying. Though that is just a cap, not a trade so meh.

[Tnzxovoz]

Originally posted by Ramo
And my post was a response that "explanation." Again, the EU system is exactly the sort of cap and trade system with a hard cap across the economy, and a soft cap on a specific entity. He's saying he doesn't support "mandatory caps" but does support "cap and trade". Presumably by "mandatory caps" he is referring to hard caps on specific entities, and by "cap and trade" referring to soft caps on individual entities.

At worst it seems he was confused about what "mandatory caps" was referring to in the question. Which isn't a big deal, miscommunication happens all the time. McCain's proposal is either worthwhile or it isn't, and that should be what people focus on.

[Pszinygv]

Probably something along the lines of tax breaks for businesses that fall under the standard, which is a far superior system to a mandatory cap and trade.

[Bobdilan]

Originally posted by Ramo
But I suppose that it's possible that McCain only uses bizarre and confusing language to talk about his climate change agenda, as opposed to being genuinely confused about the content... It's not bizarre. It may be confusing to you, but to me it seems rather easy to understand what he is getting at.

At worst he just didn't understand what was meant by "mandatory cap(s)" in the question(s). He at least seems to be consistent in how he addresses "mandatory cap(s)".

Personally if someone asked me what "mandatory caps" were, I'd say they were hard caps, since if the cap is soft, it isn't a specific mandatory cap value, which "mandatory cap" without qualification tends to suggest. Other people would read it differently, which is why in the end what matters is the actual implementation, not some nebulously worded moniker for it.

Mandatory cap is conveniently defined in this question by the system that the EU operates by. Actually, the question dealing with the EU didn't use the term "cap" at all. It used "targets". (Note the "s" as well.) Perhaps that was a source of confusion as well.

Not so easy being semantically correct, now is it? And here you get to type it out, look up definitions and references, edit it, and all that jazz. This ridiculous fixation on semantic mistakes in our political system only serves to make sure we end up with talking heads reading teleprompters, and avoidance of real issues by both candidates and voters.

It's also defined as a singular quantity ("mandatory cap"), as opposed to a specific quantity for many individual entities (which would be "mandatory caps"). "Senator McCain, you are in favor of mandatory caps." - Russert

"It's not quote mandatory caps." - McCain

I don't think the singular/plural thing has any real impact, as the question is asked with and without the "s", without even the cap part (targets) and answered with and without the "s" as well. But they are presumably all talking about the same thing. (Or assuming they are.)

Besides, a mandatory cap can refer to a type of cap, which is singular, even if the the cap would be applied in many instances. Simply saying "mandatory cap" instead of "mandatory caps" does not mean the cap must be economy-wide rather than entity specific.

It isn't. It sets very conservative targets (more appropriate for the situation several years ago), and doesn't auction the carbon credits (instead would hand them out). See, it's not so hard to actually deal with the issue, now is it?

[eCw56dzY]

Originally posted by Ramo
That's completely beside the point. It's not beside the point because you are making a semantic argument against McCain, while making semantic mistakes yourself. You feign surprise at McCain's mistake, yet make similar mistakes yourself. (Even though you have much greater means at your disposal to ensure a mistake isn't made in this forum than he does in a live question and answer.)

That's what makes your interpretation of McCain bizarre and confusing. My interpretation is not bizarre unless you live in a world where no mistakes are ever made.

[Obebtetibre]

It's not beside the point because you are making a semantic argument against McCain, while making semantic mistakes yourself. You feign surprise at McCain's mistake, yet make similar mistakes yourself. (Even though you have much greater means at your disposal to ensure a mistake isn't made in this forum than he does in a live question and answer.) Except my argument was about how "mandate" was being defined, not whether one used the word "cap" or "target." Specifically, mandate was defined by the questioner as a global (system-wide, not Earth-wide) constraint given the association with the EU's global cap. Equating a "mandate" with a local constraint would be an assumption that has not been substantiated. Again, that is why your interpretation of McCain is bizarre.