General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMitt's flip-flop-flip on the reality of global warming
Romney Surrogate Praises Obama Initiatives For Reducing CO2, Says Romney Is Not A Denier Of Climate ChangeSince last summer, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been saying that we dont know if humans are causing climate change flipping in the opposite direction from his earlier position as Governor, when he called for a no regrets policy on addressing climate change. But as we head into the general election, a surrogate from the Romney campaign now indicates the candidate has again changed his stance, declaring that he is certainly not a denier of climate science.
Stunz mostly danced around the questions on climate, criticizing EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and dismissing any domestic action without more international coordination. But in providing her answers, she also strongly hinted that a Romney Administration would engage in international talks on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Up until now, Romney has been focused exclusively on appealing to voters on the extreme right and in the process turned his back on previous support for efficiency, renewable energy, and reducing carbon emissions. But with polls showing that that a large majority of Americans understand that climate change is accelerating, support government action on the issue, and strongly desire more renewable energy, the Romney campaign may be faced with another decision: Should the candidate flip back to a more moderate stance?
They may need to bring out the Etch A Sketch on this one.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/11/514528/romney-surrogate-praises-obama-initiatives-for-reducing-co2-says-romney-is-not-a-denier-of-climate-change/
"dismissing any domestic action without more international coordination" - I'm sure "voters on the extreme right" (who oppose US membership in the UN and WTO - among other international organizations - on "national sovereignty" grounds, will be really happy to have the US sign a binding international agreement on climate change. Perhaps they won't mind too much if any agreement is just a 'feel-good' document with no enforcement provisions. It's precisely the 'enforcement provisions' (international organization forcing the US to do something) that will set "voters on the extreme right"'s hair on fire.
democrat_patriot
(2,774 posts)But the deniers are making the legislation.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)I'm pretty sure you believe in climate science. I'm also sure you choose to ignore it because it would mean your entire existence has been one giant loss to the planet.
Your legacy is as assured as anyone who profits from pollution & destruction. A nightmare existence for those who have to live with the reality of your dreams.
PolishBear
(9 posts)1: Public swimming pools open on Groundhog Day, dont close until Thanksgiving.
2: No more of those pesky polar bear attacks
EVER AGAIN.
3: You wont have to drive to the beach. The beach comes to YOU!
4: Business will be positively BOOMING at the Great Lakes alligator farms.
5: No more movies about cutesy penguins.
6: Fewer people freezing to death. Heatstroke is a much cozier way to go.
7: Forget mowing the lawn anymore. Just let it die, then paint it green.
8: February showers bring March flowers!
9: Those garishly-colored coral reefs will soon be a tasteful off-white.
10: A new, FUN contest to rename Glacier National Park!
11: Office dress codes revised to allow for Clothing-Optional Friday.
12: People less worried about going to Hell.
13: Now maybe animals will abandon the cruel practice of wearing fur.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)without any help from the Third World. China produces more total carbon emissions because it has 4 times our population, but each American is responsible for much more pollution than any individual from the Third World. (Perhaps the reason why bush wanted to have nothing to do with Kyoto.)
The only way to "outsource" global warming gases is to send them to Mars or someplace else. The melting polar caps don't really care whether the carbon emissions come from the US, Asia, Europe or Africa.
It is going to take a binding international agreement (yes, the kind that "national sovereignty" folks " on the "extreme right" - and elsewhere - will hate because the international organization that enforces any climate agreement will have to have 'teeth' to force countries to live up to their commitments. Mitt's voters "on the extreme right" are not going to like that as it will remind them of other international organizations that they want the US to withdraw from. And it does smack of the "g" word.
You'll notice that I tried to bring my response around to the point of the OP which was that mitt's understanding of climate change is "evolving" as his political needs "evolve" (though he is probably reluctant to use the term "evolve".)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)"China produces more total carbon emissions because it has 4 times our population"
Patently false. China has an export-driven economy, not an internal consumption based economy.
That means the Chinese are burning coal to make products for US consumers. This way, manufacturers escape US environmental regulations!
Romulox
(25,960 posts)"The only way to "outsource" global warming gases is to send them to Mars or someplace else. "
What fresh nonsense! Build it over there, burn the coal over there. WE are still driving the demand.