Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumAn Analysis of Romney's Environmental Positions
This is part of two of my series on DeSmogBlog titled "What To Expect When You're Electing."
In Part 1 of this series, we explored the overall environmental issues that are facing the U.S., mostly as a part of coordinated attacks by politicians in Washington. In the next few articles, well take a look at what each candidate has said or done in regards to both environmental and energy issues.
At this point in the race, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States, a title that will become official after the Republican convention in August. Because Romney previously served as a governor, we have the benefit of looking at what hes actually done when placed in charge, not just committee votes or proposed legislation.
And just like his record on other issues, Romneys environmental record is one that has constantly changed to fit the political landscape. He has somehow managed to take both sides of virtually every major environmental issue, with his recent positions being more in line with that of the extremist, climate change denying branch of the Republican Party.
But the shift in ideas and rhetoric for Romney (which has quickly become his trademark as a candidate) is actually also in line with that of other major Republican candidates.
Before the 2008 election, Republican Senator John McCain had been a very vocal critic of the Bush administration's lackadaisical, and often hostile, approach towards the environment. He was the first member of Congress to put forth legislation to actually address climate change, and he was a vocal proponent of action on climate change via StopGlobalWarming.org.
But things changed when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, and his campaign began touting the ridiculous line Drill baby drill. His positions on environmental issues moved further to the right, and his past accomplishments became overshadowed by his newfound desire to please the dirty energy industry and appeal to the Tea Party base of the Republican Party.
It appears that Mitt Romney is following in McCains disastrous footsteps.
During his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, Romneys environmental record is something that he should be proud of, for the most part. He established a state fund for green, renewable energy projects; approved bills that would set aside land for solar power harvesting stations; and understood that investing in clean energy technology would be an economic boon to the state, in both dollars and jobs.
His green energy fund began with a $15 million investment from the state, a modest amount, but at least it was a start. But just seven years after he touted the states involvement in green energy investing, Romney took a shot at President Obamas similar initiatives, telling Republicans that the government should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches.
And what about Romneys admission as governor that investing in clean energy would create jobs? Today, this is what he says about that issue: To begin with, wind and solar power, two of the most ballyhooed forms of alternative fuel, remain sharply uncompetitive on their own with conventional resources such as oil and natural gas in most applications.
The flip-flops dont end there, either. While governor, Romney touted the benefits of cap and trade systems, and implemented a plan that he hoped would serve as a blueprint for the rest of the nation. But as Mother Nature Network points out, this is what hes now saying on the campaign trail about cap and trade in America: We're going to move our new facilities from the U.S. to China, where they don't have those agreements. You end up polluting and putting just as much CO2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That's why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis. They don't call it 'America warming.' They call it 'global warming.'
You can get the full story at DeSmogBlog.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 674 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post