Associated Press
When it comes to policymakers and the climate crisis, I've long believed there are basically three categories: (1) those who deny the problem; (2) those who recognize the problem; and (3) those who support taking concrete steps to mitigate the problem.
Mitt Romney, at least the current iteration of him, falls comfortably in Group #2. The Republican is willing to publicly acknowledge that the problem is real, and has no use for climate deniers, but just doesn't want to do anything to address the crisis.
This was evident when he chose his running mate -- Paul Ryan has consistently opposed climate change legislation, and appears to have some strange beliefs on the subject -- and it was even clearer yesterday when Romney unveiled his energy plan. As Stephen Stromberg noted:
According to a 21-page proposal his campaign released Thursday, Romney's vision is to achieve "North American energy independence" by 2020 by opening up America's Continental Shelf and federal lands for more drilling, and by approving projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline, which will move crude oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast.
The most obvious problem with Romney's latest pronouncement on energy is that there is not a single mention of the fact that the Earth is warming and human energy production is at least partially responsible for it. It's possible to favor expanding access to U.S. energy resources and addressing global warming; Romney just doesn't try.
It was bad enough that Romney's "plan" -- I use the word loosely -- was devoid of real policy details. As Simon Maloy joked, "This isn't even a 'plan.' It's a wish list with citations."
But nearly as troubling is Romney's reluctance to even consider real challenges. How will he address global warming? He won't. How will he try to reduce oil consumption? He won't. How does Romney explain why his plan will create 3.6 million job in the energy sector? He doesn't say.
Romney opposes investments in renewable energy, and believes wind and solar don't count as "real" energy, but is confident that even more oil drilling will solve our problems. So much for the push towards policy substance in the presidential campaign.
Leave a Comment:
Mitt Romney, at least the current iteration of him, falls comfortably in Group #2.
Steve, that link is over a year old. The current version of Romney no longer believes that climate change is real.
Most people don't believe climate change is a problem. On the plus side more drilling means more jobs, independence from the Middle East, rebalancing trade deficits, more tax revenue, and all paid for with private money.
All that against what exactly?
Republican stupidity is wearying.
Shooter, "most people" are the victims of the false equivalency argument that the 2 sides of the debate have equal validity. Which is ignorant.
Despite Romney's "plan", we still do not have the reserves or resources to achieve independence based on fossil fuels alone. In any case, there is no possible way the infrastructure would be in place by 2020.
And there's no way in hell that it would all be done with "private money". The oil companies know good and damn well Romney's promise is impossible, there is no way they'll make those kinds of investments out of their own pockets.
And the oil and gas would still be sold on the open market and we'd still be complaining on the price of gas.
Your argument about the creation of jobs would also be true if the pursuit was for sustainable solutions, which are not based on fantasy.
Sorry Dave but I think you're bowing to the altar of Green while the rest of the world is advancing without you. Google "oil' and "gas" "reserves" and you'll see in natural gas alone we have enough for all needs for nearly a century.
Yes, the infrastructure could be done in eight years if greenlighted, and yes, it would all be done with private money. Business can do amazing things if allowed, and yes it would need careful oversight.
Yes, the fuels would be sold in the open market, but without transportation costs, it will be cheaper. More importantly the money would stay here not go to ME mullahs. Meanwhile you can dream about sustainable solutions, but that's not going to feed the cat today.
It's a crude analogy, but the left is fighting over table scraps, while people like Romney are making the dinner they come from. Is that really where you want to be? Fighting for left overs?
It is common practice for politicians/oil companies to quote the number of years of reserves in current usage. Unfortunately, exponential growth makes a mockery of this type of analysis. For example, if domestic energy consumption grows 7% p.a., then in the next 10 years, we would use more energy than the US economy has ever used. In 20 years, we would use three times that amount, as so on. Those who understand exponential growth know that we have no hope of meeting long-term world energy needs with fossil fuels. "Drill-baby drill" will just be a little blip on a long-term trend.
Also, if we burnt all of those carbon resources... we would dramatically change the world in only 100 years.
These are just the facts.
7% is ridiculous. Try 2%.
Which still wipes out those reserves faster than you think, even when you ignore the fact that most of those gas reserves are inaccessible using any technology either available or in development.
Furthermore, if we were to release all that fossil carbon you can say goodbye to Florida and quite possibly hello to temperature increases that would make the PETM spike look glacial.
You forgot the fourth category: Legislators and politicians who CAUSE the problem. And, frankly, Republicans and even some Democrats fall into this category. Who made "Drill, Baby, Drill" a popular mantra, anyway?
Larry Kudlow. (Simple solutions for simple minds. "You're hungry? Well, go back for seconds!")
Legislators and politicians who CAUSE the problem.
Actually Hero,
We, the American consumer can take a large share of the cause of the problem - driving HUGE vehicles and using virtually every electical appliance ALL the time (hair dryers, computers, recharging our smart phones, microwaves, toasters, blenders, humongous flat screen TV's, etc). It is fine to "talk" about climate change and renewable/clean energy, but with the amount of energy we use and demand, we are quite far from weaning ourself from oil and coal. The mindset of the American consumer HAS to be changed to living a little less "excessive" energy wise.
Saaaarrrraaahhhhh Paaallliiinnnn while viewing Russia from her back porch.
Romneys plan to deal with global warming--ensure his air conditioner can keep up with demand and his liquid assets are above any expected need level in case he has to move to a enviro-dome.
It is time for the major energy companies to post safety bonds. A trillion dollars is a reasonable amount. That may not be enough to mitigate the damage but may be enough to convince them to be more careful, and to invest in some 21st century cleanup procedures.
Alternative energy like wind and solar are still too hippy-dippy for the Romney voter. If it doesn't keep the F250 running, it isn't real energy. That's on the limited information voter side. On the business side, Energy is still and will be dominated by the oil and gas industries. That's where the money is, that's where all the pro-drill propaganda comes from, and that's where the federal energy policy will be directed to and run by.
Numbers 1 and 2 must be "Pro Pollution". I think if the argument is reworded, no one can be in favor of pollution!
Not too long ago I saw or read (hopefully not in a parrallel universe) that if all the world's house roofs were painted white global warming would be reversed. Eh. I guess that can be calculated and might be true. But I would think that NASA could send up some unfolding reflector. There are alot of things we need to be doing extraterrestrially; a one G space station, send bacteria to Venus, an asteroid sheild for the Earth,,,.
The horse has long left the barn on global warming otherwise..
Instead of white paint, do what the Germans have done- put solar panels on them.
The White Horse has long left the barn on global warming...
Romney abandoned any thought of having an original thought long ago. His "energy policy" was no doubt written by agents of the Koch brothers and others who have gotten to be filthy rich by exploiting dependence on fossil fuels.
The policy really is: "Lets burn up all the fossil fuels" and if the planet goes with them, who cares?
The 99% will give up their necessities before the 1% will give up it's luxuries.
That elevator in Mitt's garage isn't for moving Chevy Volts closer to a renewable energy source...
Yesterday Mitt kept referring to "making North America energy independent." I wonder how many people realize just what countries make up North America? Hint: 2 of the 3 export oil to the third.
There are many Republicans who don't believe in climate change and that belief is relative to the amount of campaign contributions from the oil, coal and gas industries.
~~As Simon Maloy joked, "This isn't even a 'plan.' It's a wish list with citations."
I listened to some track of Spitt yakking about his energy "plan", and I thought he said that it would create 30 million jobs, and add $500 Billion to the economy...?! Either I misheard, or his economic advisors are even more moronic than he is.
The truth about Drill, baby, Drill and American Gas prices...
"JAY: So let's start first of all with this issue of if there was more domestic drilling and production and more pipelines, the price of gas would come down. Is there some truth to that?
POLLIN: No."
Jaw dropping stupid .
Where pray tell Willard are you going to refine all this crude oil ?
The biggest problem we have right now is the refining capacity ...or at least that's what they tell us.
Explain to me again what is going to compel the oil companies to keep the oil in the United States when China and India are clamoring for oil and are willing to pay a premium price?
The Homer Simpson energy policy DOH!
You did notice that the oil is being shipped to refineries that make jet and diesel fuel for export, didn't you? And that it was bypassing refineries that make fuel for domestic consumption. And that Big Oil owns the republican party.
I am an American studying in Canada, and my wife is Canadian. The Problem that NO ONE is talking about is that Canada is a Sovereign Nation, and in trade talks with China to sell Canadian Oil to them. Canadians aren't too keen on dealing with the U.S.
Under the Romney plan, 29% of U.S. Oil would be imported from Canada. However, what happens if Canada ships its oil to China? That 29% would be much lower.
The other Irony is that if a trade deal is made with China and Canada, then China would (possibly) be buying Canadian Oil (that Mitt wants) with U.S. Cash.
Canada, and Canadians as a whole can't stand Mitt Romney, because he refuses to recognize Canada's Sovereignty. Many Canadians joke that Mitt Romney wants to Annex Canada as the 51st State. How's that going to play for the Chinese Oil Trade?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/17/247570/paul-ryan-family-beneft-subsidies-for-big-oil-in-his-budget/
This in part explains why Paur Lyan believes the way he does.