With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.
With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.
I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.
As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”
In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”
During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”
However, EPA Abuse reports:
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.
Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.
Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”
“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”
“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.
John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”
“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”
“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”
“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.
Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News