Associated Press
One either wants to reduce carbon emissions or not.
About a year ago, Mitt Romney, to his credit, broke with Republican orthodoxy and acknowledged the climate crisis. "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a New Hampshire audience. "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."
Soon after, as is his habit, Romney reversed course and announced he no longer believes what he said he believes. The Republican told a different New Hampshire audience he "thinks" the world's getting hotter, but added, "I don't know that ... [and] I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."
As of this week, he's rolling out an even murkier stance. Here's what Romney told Scientific American and ScienceDebate.org (via Carl Franzen).
"I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue -- on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk -- and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.
"Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that if global warming is occurring, the American response must be to slash carbon dioxide emissions by imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy. First he tried a massive cap-and-trade bill that would have devastated U.S. industry. When that approach was rejected by Congress, he declared his intention to pursue the same course on his own and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry."
The response, which appears to have been a written answer provided by the Romney campaign, is a bit of a mess. He believes there's no scientific "consensus," for example, though there's ample evidence to the contrary. Romney also scoffs at the prospect of a "massive cap-and-trade bill," overlooking a minor detail: this massive cap-and-trade bill was a Republican idea, in line with what McCain/Palin proposed just four years ago.
That said, the answer isn't a total disaster -- Romney at least believes the planet is warming and that human activity "contributes" to the problem. The follow-up question is, what does he intend to do about it?
His written response touches on this, too. After explaining all the effective policies he's against, Romney presents what he calls a "No Regrets" policy.
"For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries."
That's nice, I suppose, but it's more of a wish than a policy. By Romney's reasoning, he'll support increased taxpayer spending on scientific research -- the Ryan budget plan, which Romney endorsed, cuts taxpayer spending on scientific research -- and researchers will create new technologies.
In other words, Romney's plan for global warming is to wait for scientists to come up with a solution to global warming. Take that, Al Gore.
Romney's energy plan doesn't make so much as a passing reference to the climate crisis, and as of his convention speech, he was using rising sea levels as a cheap punch-line. As we talked about last month, there are basically three categories of politicians when it comes to the global warming: (1) those who deny the problem; (2) those who recognize the problem; and (3) those who support taking concrete steps to mitigate the problem.
x
Romney wants folks to know he's in Group #2, and while it's marginally better than Group #1, as a practical matter, there's no real difference -- either policymakers will work to address the crisis or they won't.
Romney believes "the world is getting warmer." I'm glad. But unless he's prepared to actually do something about it, his beliefs are largely meaningless.
Leave a Comment:
I suspect that very few voters will make their decision based on climate change, one way or the other.
More likely it will be "take your guns away vs "take your Medicare away."
or if you're in Texas, take our mexicans away.
Well, he plans to reverse all of the eco-friendly steps Obama has taken in the last 4 years, for starters. Specifically to reverse the designation of CO2 as a pollutant, and thereby gut the new fuel-efficiency standards among other things.
But I don't think he's waiting for our scientists to find a solution. He's waiting for Chinese scientists to find a solution, and for the Chinese government to shut down all coal-fired plants, and then maybe he'll think about it some more.
That said, the answer isn't a total disaster -- Romney at least believes the planet is warming and that human activity "contributes" to the problem. The follow-up question is, what does he intend to do about it?
The answer is "Drill, Baby, Drill", just like his corporate and wealthy funders want!
After all, their portfolio values increasing is much, much more important than the long term survival of human life on this planet.
Oh please. Minnesota is all in favor of global warming. Bring it on.
Ahh Blankman, there you are.....Minnesotans aren't all in favor of global warming....Some actually still like ice fishing.....
Shooter's never been to Minnesota. Otherwise he would know that winter is the only time there aren't any of those big nasty mosquitos!
Winter is DEFINITELY the best time to visit Minnesota!!
I'll second that, from Wisconsin.....bring it on +1
Besides, I want to use up my fair share of carbon fuel before I have to contribute to it with my body.
And the millions of people who will die as a result mean nothing as long as you get a tan?
The more I hear Romney speak, the more I know he's an idiot.
Father Benedict Groeschel, the director of the Office for Spiritual Development for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, wrote an opinion piece for the National Catholic Register suggesting child victims of sexual abuse are partially to blame. As Groeschel sees it, the minor victims played the role of "the seducer" with convicted child predators like Jerry Sandusky. The National Catholic Register has since taken down Groeschel's piece.
First of all this was an interview with Fr Groeschel, not an opinion piece. Please stand corrected. Secondly, since the interview and Fr Groeschel's mis spoken words, he has retracted the comments and his wonderful show which has hosted for so many years, he has resigned from EWTN. I suppose due to health issues. As I have watched him for years and seen him in person at St Marie's Church in Manchester, NH Fr Groeshel is an incredible priest, apologist and super human being. Living in his monastic community, which is located in Fort Apache, the Bronx (that would be theeeeeeee worst area in the Bronx) Fr Groeschel has always shown the face & heart of Jesus Christ to millions of people. A loving man and the perfect Catholic priest. He IS your worst night mare. Those in favor of abortion ask often, "why don't YOU take the mothers in?" "Why don't YOU support them during the pregnancy, and long after finding them housing , food, health services and materials needed to survive?" Well, Fr Groeschel's Fransiscan Friars of the Renewal DO do that, all of it. For years! For thousands.
It is too bad that his faculties are beginning to waver. It has been obvious to me watching his program the past couple years. Many times, co hosts or the guests themselves serve as help mates in getting the interview forward. His speech is slowed, his mind set attributes diminishing and his skill sets are wavering too. Still, what an incredible priest. I LOVE the man. Great, great example of Jesus Christ. Yes his many heart attacks and his by passes and all the meds involved have taken their toll. That couple with his "auto accident" he was struck by a car and nearly killed. All these have contributed to his loss of skill sets. I wish him well and will pray for him always. I have personally made a serious contirbution to the FFof the Renewal this week in spite of this recent event. Actually because of it. I know Fr Groeschel would never intentionally hurt or misrepresent anyone especially the innocent. I cannot say the same for Maddow. Or the Blog author here.
Father Groeschel steps down from EWTN show
47 Comments
171
Father Benedict Groeschel. Credit: EWTN.
Irondale, Ala., Sep 4, 2012 / 10:42 am (CNA).- Franciscan friar Father Benedict Groeschel has stepped down as host of EWTN’s Sunday Night Prime television show following his apology for making comments about the sexual abuse of minors.
“Father Benedict has led a life of tremendous compassion and service to others and his spiritual insights have been a great gift to the EWTN family for many years. We are profoundly grateful to him and assure him of our prayers,” Michael P. Warsaw, president and CEO of EWTN Global Catholic Network, said Sept. 3.
“At the same time, we ask our EWTN family to pray for all those who have been affected by this painful situation and in particular those who have been victims of sexual abuse.”
Fr. Groeschel decided to step down from the program after consulting with EWTN and with his religious community, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, Warsaw said.
In a National Catholic Register interview published Aug. 27, Fr. Groeschel suggested that a minor is “the seducer” in “a lot” of sexual abuse cases. He said he was inclined to think that abusers on their first offense should not go to jail “because their intention was not committing a crime.”
Fr. Groeschel apologized for the remarks last week, saying he did not intend to “blame the victim.” He affirmed that a priest or anyone else who abuses a minor is “always always wrong” and “always responsible.”
“I deeply regret any harm I have caused to anyone,” the priest said, adding that his mind and his way of expressing himself are “not as clear as they used to be.”
Warsaw said the comments at the EWTN-owned National Catholic Register “should never have been published” and “in no way” reflect the views of the Register or EWTN.
“It should have been obvious to the editor that Father Benedict's physical condition and mental clarity have deteriorated and that the comments were completely inconsistent with his life's work and witness,” the EWTN president said. “We apologize that these remarks were published and ask for forgiveness for this error.”
EWTN’s Sunday Night Prime program will continue with other Franciscan Friars of the Renewal serving as hosts.
God Bless you Fr Groeschel. One of the greatest living priests we have. In his humility I am certain Fr Groeschel will make great effort to reconcile the mis spoken words and do all he can to repair the damage done. He has made an innnocent mistake. OBVIOUSLY in ill health at the time of the interview. I am also sure you here, because you are such staunch advocates of the elderly and their concerns will join me in praying for Fr Groeschel. Thank You.
Not only totally off-topic, but a morally indefensible apologia for a morally indefensible person.
Paddy can't help it when he gets into the Guinness first thing in the morning.
Damn, I don't think much of our Senile Diaper Man, but I didn't really didn't think he'd get into apologetics for protectors of apologists of child-molestation. Boundaries get extended every day in Wingnuttia. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but...
My goodness Disgusted with it all. Do you hate older people as much as it appears you do? I thought yours was the party of generousity and care of the elderly. But your constant references of old people allow me to know you are nothing but a vicious hate monger.
Although I don't wear a diaper and am a thousand times the man than you, why don't you open up one of those dipers and eat to your dirty hearts content.
Romney believes "the world is getting warmer."
Actually, we don't what Romney thinks. He tells one audience one thing, another audience another thing, and a third audience something else altogether. With so many contradictory positions on so many different issues, it's no wonder the fact checkers can't get it right.
"Romney thinks" is a logical impossibility. "Romney says" is about as close as we can get. What we know is, once he's in office, he'll be keeping the seat warm for his successor, Paul Ryan, while he dutifully signs all documents brought him by his handlers, led by Grover Norquist and Tony Perkins.
If Romney can get a Republican Congress, he will undo all of the EPA regulations that his handlers want undone and emasculate the EPA along with the SEC, OSHA, Dept. of Education, Labor Dept. and so on.
There is nothing more disgusting about Republicans than their two generations of abusing and attacking science in the service of unfettered market laissez faire capitalism for their pollutocrat mind-masters and political benefactors. All so as to unleash the shackles on those who would only rain down more carcinogens and planet destruction for profits.
Sickens me to understand this nation has fallen for such mountebankery. But here we are, subservient to the unthinking absolutist fanatics who have nothing else in their brains other than the Bible and unfettered markets.
When I was in grad school going on 40 years ago, one of our texts was "The Limits To Growth" by the Club of Rome, which pretty much forecast what we have today. At the time, the Republicans assaulted it as "Marxist," "anti-American," and all their other standard-issue b.s. A couple years ago I discovered my copy, in a box in my garage, and re-read it. Everything they forecast would happen in 30 years if nothing was done has happened exactly as forecast.
I just wish the extinction of the failed experiment in biological intelligence that can foresee the results of its actions and change them where needed, aka Homo Sap (as a species, we sure aren't very Sapient), didn't include the extinction of everything else, since every other species on the planet is morally superior (when was the last time an animal stole from you, lied to you, screwed you over, etc.?) and deserves to survive.
I haven't read "The Limits to Growth" but I've read about it. There is nothing more stupid that the Cornucopians who dismiss Malthus as being shown to be wrong. We're getting ready to see very clearly this world is Malthusian should Republicans get their way.
Republicans have my undying enmity. Their dismissal of life as nothing more than a sum of individual markets, whether dollar values can be assigned or not, is so monumentally sickening, blindered, inartful and dismissive of the wonder of life that I simply have a hard time respecting any single person who votes for a Republican, and that despite the fact I realize many, perhaps most, are just ignorant people without a sense of wonder.
If anyone wants to understand the true malignancy of these unhuman basturds -- whose true motivation is from their hatred of society joining together to do things that the collective does best -- they should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If Republicans don't disgust a person after reading that, there's something wrong with their wiring. Such a person can't be a thinking, compassionate human. Just can't.
Pollutocrats…basturds... good ones Disgusted
I remain respecting of all humans as humans, but it's getting harder all the time. Just listening to strange answers that make no sense is getting more and more hard to take. I blame "Faux News" and Limpy for the meanness and totally MIA empathy, even making it a sport. These folks need to stop accepting their pablum. Their compassion and curiosity bones have been extracted and replaced with bossy and bully bones.
I keep thinking of something Sidney Freedman said once to Col. Flagg in an episode of MASH: "You're a victim, too, Flagg, but you're such a perfect example of a walking bag of fertilizer that it's hard for me to care." At least, that's as close as I can get from memory. It's hard to have any feeling for people who have no feeling for others.
Romney could care less about what happens to this earth, just like he didn't give a damn about those companies he destroyed. He's going to make as much money as he can and then he is going to become a God and get himself a new clean planet! Isn't that what his religion promises him?
Really, why do you think he wants the job as President?? Is it to help the US or to help himself???
True, and there are many people even worse, such as The Blank.
Another Mitt lie. Coal production is up. Coal exports are up. The coal industry is not going bankrupt regardless of what the EPA does. Unless other countries discover sources of natural gas, foreign demand for our coal will keep that industry alive for a very long time.
The real greenhouse gas pollution and climate change influencers are two major components. The first being cargo ships that use very high sulphur content 'bunker oil', these ships produce more harm than all of the autos in the world. The second is the Kyoto treaty allowed China to build over 1500 coal fired electric generation plants, because China is considered an 'emerging nation'.
Be proud of your ignorance. Be very proud. It's about all you have.
Has anyone actually been able to tally up the total number of issues that Mitt has flip-flopped on since this campaign started? I am sure that we are into triple digits by now.
RACHEL !!!!!!!!
WTF????
Every idiot I talk to thinks Obama is responsible for the $16 TRILLION debt.
FIX THIS ASAP!!!!!!
THE RNC's Debt Clock has brainwashed people.
Stop spamming the blog. And stop demanding that Rachel 'fix' stupid.
MR. PRESIDENT YOU WILL LOSE IF...
You do not stand up for the lies the right is making on the National debt.
They are accusing you of spending $5 TRILLION during your term.
I know for a fact that they are all GOP policies that caused it.
Fixing the GOP screw ups is not your spending is theirs.
Stimulus to save the GOP screw ups are LOANS not spending.
INTEREST on the GOP TRILLIONS of debt is NOT yours to be responsible for.
MR. President,
The $16 TRILLION is GOP Policies of the past 32 years.
Stand up for your record and denounce those accusations.
Use their debt clock against them.
Let's add up the debt under Reagan and the Bushes.
We can't blame Reagan for the debt's increase until his first budget took effect, October 1, 1981. Then, for 12 years until Sept. 30, 1993, the Republicans ballooned the debt. Later, George W. Bush took over.
Under Reagan and Bush: $3.4 Trillion increase in the debt.
Under George W. Bush: $6.1 Trillion.
Total: $9.5 Trillion. (without counting interest)
But wait, there's interest on that debt ...
The debt went up during Clinton's years only because of $2.2 Trillion interest on the Reagan-Bush debt. Otherwise Clinton would have paid off most the remaining WWII debt. G.W.Bush got sand-bagged by Reagan.
Just like a mortgage, the debt earns interest, and so the Reagan-Bush-I debt grew during the Clinton years. The average debt interest rate in those years was about 6.5%, which would increase it over 50% without compounding, but with compound interest the total debt – including interest – increased by $2.2 trillion.
Total Republican debt from above: $9.5 trillion
Interest on Reagan-Bush debt under Clinton: $2.2 trillion
Interest on $11.7 trillion after G. W. Bush: $0.3 trillion
Grand Total Reagan-Bushes Debt: $12 trillion (as of Sept. 30, 2010).
If the Republicans had not run up this $12 Trillion debt, we could easily have pulled out of the Great Recession.
The rest on the debt have been the ongoing and "unbudgeted" tax discounts, GOP created wars, corporate loopholes, etc.
And, the INTEREST per year for those GOP generated TRILLIONS.
PASS THIS TO OBAMA.
Romney's mind must be scrambled. How can he possibly keep track of what his position is on any single subject on any single day of the week? It's really no wonder he won't talk to reporters.