Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
Romney: Hot and Cold on Global Warming
His positions have changed dramatically, and his convictions are unreliable.

By Deroy Murdock


About Author Archive Latest RSS Send

Mitt Romney in Florence, S.C., Jan. 17, 2012


Text  

Willard Mitt Romney these days could not be more explicit about abandoning President Obama’s carbon dioxide restrictions.

“Irresponsibly,” Romney wrote in an August 28 op-ed for the Foster’s Daily Democrat in New Hampshire, “the EPA declared carbon dioxide, the same carbon dioxide that humans exhale, to be a ‘pollutant’ that poses risks to human health.” He also observed: “Congress had the good sense not to compound our economic challenges by imposing cap-and-trade’s extraordinary costs on the American people.”

Romney’s website offers this carbon-friendly promise: “Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda.”

Advertisement

Well — surprise, surprise! Unlike this conservative cantata, Romney sang a totally different tune as Massachusetts’s liberal-Republican governor.

A recently exposed dossier from the 2008 John McCain campaign offers 200 pages of Romney’s self-contradictions, vacillations, and head-scratchers. His views on so-called “global warming” are just the tip of this non-melting iceberg of confusion.

McCain’s database includes Ryan Sager’s April 20, 2007, New York Sun story in which Romney embraces a 1940s fuel source. “Liquefied coal, gosh,” Romney said. “Hitler during the Second World War — I guess because he was concerned about losing his oil — liquefied coal. That technology is still there.”

Less bizarre were Romney’s 2003 comments to religious leaders. According to a March 25, 2007, article in the Los Angeles Times, Romney said he was “terrified” about “warming” and found it “quite alarming.”

From one RINO to another, Romney wrote then-governor George Elmer Pataki (R., N.Y.) in July 2003. “Now is the time to take action toward climate protection,” Romney declared. He suggested that a “regional cap and trade system could serve as an effective approach” for both 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 Dec. 7, 2005 press release is most revealing. It announced that “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.

“Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants,” the communiqué noted. “The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation and are designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.”

“Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts,” the release declared. “These include John Holden, [sic] professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy.”

John Holdren is Obama’s science adviser. S. Fred Singer, a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director, calls him “a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.” Singer says Holdren misled Romney or his staff. “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.”

“Governor Romney is a global-warming alarmist, so much so that he initiated a cap-and-trade program in Massachusetts, resulting in the second-most-expensive electricity in the nation. Only New York, which subscribes to a similar policy, has higher costs,” the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels says. “He claims not to have signed on to the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but this was only after already imposing a similar program in Massachusetts.”

“While Romney may say that his position has changed on this issue, that is doubtful,” adds Michaels, a former Virginia State climatologist. “No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisers, and then suddenly reverse himself. As president, he will revert to his more familiar green self. He made a clear point in his ‘victory’ speech in Iowa to mention renewable energy, which is code language for government subsidies to the inefficient electric cars no one wants, and nationalization of Massachusetts’s outrageously expensive electricity costs.”

“Romney’s press release should be taken in the context of more recent statements in which he has changed his views on climate change,” suggests Julian Morris, the Reason Foundation’s vice president of research and a visiting professor at Great Britain’s University of Buckingham. “The optimistic conclusion would be that he changes his mind in response to better evidence. The pessimistic conclusion would be that he changes his mind in response to the advice of pollsters.”

Americans who thirst for leadership driven by principles rather than polls should go see The Iron Lady. Meryl Streep, the finest actress in recorded history, masterfully portrays former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Her Majesty’s head of government dominates the United Kingdom, steady in her conservative convictions and convincing as she communicates them. As America drifts among the waves like a faded champagne cork, these memories of Thatcher’s rule trigger goose bumps.

America now ponders someone who is flexible on virtually everything — even the air we breathe. Clearly no Iron Lady, Romney is the Man of Foil.

New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Cruz Reaches for a Runoff

Costa: How Hatch Wooed Palin, and the Right

Costa: Red-Hued New Jersey?

Trinko: For Mitt Romney, It’s 1994

Goldberg: Obama, Romney, and the ‘Social Market’

Klein: Romney and the Right



COMMENTS   33

EXPAND  

Jaden6598
   01/20/12 06:35

If you were to listen to most candidates over the past decade you would get whiplash. Romney, in particular, is a hack whose oplnion changes with the polls. He is a RIiNO. He is supposed to be the best of the lot. What a joke.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/20/12 09:02

This is not news. Romney is and always has been a liberal. Now he is pretending to be a conservative so that he can get the nomination. If he is elected, which is highly doubtful, he will flip as soon as he is inaugurated and show his true colors. He will reach across the aisle to Reid and Pelosi because it is his nature.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/20/12 10:37

"Clearly no Iron Lady, Romney is the Man of Foil." Great line Mr. Murdock.
How about, "Mitt the Malleable".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Heckler Danny
   01/20/12 12:48

Thatcher helped create the global warming movement, and the reason she escapes criticism is the fact that Nigel Lawson’s book on the subject is the best one written to date. (Lawson was her Chancellor of the Exchequer.) At the time, the Academic Left was more worried about global cooling, and Thatcher promoted, for national security purposes, the idea that the planet is heating up. It was a useful short-term policy, and the conservative movement played along.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
BHunter
   01/20/12 13:46

Well done, Mr Murdock. This should be required reading for everyone who is guzzling the Romney Kool-Aid. Too many Republican voters seem to be ignoring the unpleasant reality that Massachusetts found him palatable enough to elect him governor.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/20/12 16:55

Not a big Romney fan. But I am having a hard time being a fan of any of the candidates I know of. But should he win the nomination (and he seems to have a better than average chance) I will get behind him.

The conservatives could not stomach McCain in the last election and arguably gave the election to Obama by not voting or throwing their votes away (according to some analysts). There was an element of "We'll show them. We'll let everything go to h*ll and then the country will be ready to elect a real conservative."

While I can sort of see the logic, I don't think it has worked out well. Obama has done far more damage to the country than McCain ever would have and I don't see that the country is now more likely to elect a true conservative, much as I would like that.

In a nut shell, for now go ahead and throw your shots at any and all of the candidates. Now is the appropriate time for that. But after the primaries are done, we need to concentrate on getting Obama out, regardless of how weak we may think the Republican is. We have got to hold our noses if necessary and get fully behind the Republican nominee. If for no other reason, than we cannot afford to let Obama make any more Supreme Court nominations.

And what we need to do simultaneously is get a good conservative Congress in place to move the country in the right direction, regardless of who the President is.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/20/12 17:42

Seconded. And Romney would not be likely to oppose a conservative congress, if by some miracle we can manage to elect one.

Two points on Murdock's piece: (1) Liquefied coal is not some pie-in-the-sky green technology, it's a proven way of getting more oil. For that reason, it's practical when oil prices go high enough, and so there's no reason to hold Romney's past advocacy (or even present advocacy, if he still holds that view) against him. (2) The fact is that Romney is (or says he is) on the right side of these issues NOW. Yes, it would be better not to have to gamble that his current positions are held through conviction rather than polling data that told him he better sound more conservative if he wanted the nomination, but we may not have that luxury.

Romney is not the ideal candidate, but he was a better choice than McCain four years ago and he's a better choice than Obama today. Whether he's better than Santorum is another matter.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 MAFV
   01/20/12 19:55

NobodyInParticular:

Nicely stated.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Mr. Mark
   01/20/12 18:29

The worst thing about the whole anthropogenic climate change hoax is how many people have built careers on it. It's enough that some folks are hesitant to admit they were bamboozled by the whole thing, but when you throw money into the picture, they'll cling to the AGW hoax all the way to bitter end...sort of a bunch of a granola-munching, Starbucks-sipping, Lefty-hipster "bitter clingers" ya know?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
HC69
   01/20/12 19:03

Sure - Romney is "evolving" on AGW. Thank God! How about Newt? Did we get an explanation for why he was sitting oin the couch with Nancy? No - only that it was a "political" mistake. Political? We have to take this issue on - head on. Is CO2 bad or not? I think not - but the watermelons out there argue otherwise. Let's get to the bottom of this.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
HC69
   01/20/12 19:14

Romney has changed his position on AGW. Newt claims he made a huge poltical mistake sitting on the couch with Nancy. But he never really explained why! Question they need to be asked - is CO2 bad or good? We have to come to grips with this and make up our minds. I'm convinced CO2 is basically natural and not a threat. But if the watermelons win the argument, we're dead. They'll control everthing.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/20/12 20:03

None of the visible candidates in recent memory knew two actual cents worth of real information about "global warming". They just blindly opined based upon a consensus of manufactured data in a conspiracy scam to gain grant money and political power for a segment of scientists.

I don't hold their feet to the fire for their opinions 6 years ago (except that they hopefully might have learned to actually 'know' about something before shooting their mouth off). But it's their position now - now that the consensus crowd has been proven to have so obviously cooked the books - that deserves the scrutiny of potential hot coal walking.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/20/12 23:44

This is not fair criticism of Romney. I notice that Newt on the couch with Pelosi doesn't even get parsed.
At one time the "global warmers" had so much noise going on that most people from Chris Christie to Romney to Newt believe the lies. After all, there was no contrary position widely disseminated.
A lot of smart people got suckered in.
Truth won out. Newt, Romney and a lot of others shifted positions to match the new reality.
You can't blame them for that. You can only blame those who have clung to there "hockey stick graph and their IPCC reports" .

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/12 00:53

None of the candidates, Republican or Democratic, are reliable on the subject of global warming. It is because they do not have any credible science advisors advising them about both sides of the story on their campaigns (and Barack the Usurper has no excuse at all, since he has been the captive of radical environmental groups and environmental lobbyists since he first ran for President).

I think that Newt can be convinced of his errors in his previous positions. He has already railed against EPA, and has admitted that his commercial with Nancy Pelosi was the dumbest thing he ever did. Romney, on the other hand, will continue to vacillate, because he has no one he is willing to rely on to help him understand that the politics of this issue is just so much baloney.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/12 12:47

As much as I am concerned about Romney's many flip-flops, I regard his changing views on Global Warring to be a good sign.

Just from polls, we can all tell that millions of Americans have changed their opinions about "climate change" over the past few years, in large part because we've not seen warming since 1998, despite continual increases in CO2, and because the Climategate revelations have shown that the allegedly "settled science" was neither settled, nor science.

None of the warmistas' dire predictions have come true, while more and more real science has falsified the alleged mechanisms purporting to show CO2's dominant role in atmospheric energy transport.

As Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/12 14:05

The facts didn't change. The knowledge that climate change was a myth fostered for the sole purpose of increasing govt power has been available since the beginning.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Heckler Danny
   01/21/12 16:21

The trend in surface air temperature can be represented as increasing or decreasing, depending on the length of the past time period selected. This knowledge has been available for years, but demands of climate omniscience are getting old. That so many Republican leaders have embraced weak positions on climate policy says as much about the GOP rank and file than about these officials.

This does not excuse Romney's conservative critics for failing to help the Great Communicator confront Thatcher. Instead, they gave her a blank check and want Mitt to foot their bill. This from the gang that promises a "knockout" on the Obama bailouts.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/21/12 23:44

Sorry, but the PUBLIC knowledge was not there. You are also treating "facts" as if they were widely known and dispositive, when they were not.

Climategate blew the doors off the hoax. It was only after wattsupwiththat and other skeptical sites got traction, in the form of millions of hits, that the general public came to understand what a crock the entire AGW case was.

Until then a guy like Newt or Mitt would look to the National Academy of Science and other mainstream organizations for their "executive level" briefings.

You also seem to ignore that great gobs of real science have been done and broadcast to counter the Algores of the world. The facts (not available to Romney or anyone else five years ago) that there's been no warming since 1998), and that warmista predictions did not come to pass, also helped.

Climategate revelations caused millions to take another look at the new data, and that made all the difference.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/23/12 01:51

No, sorry but you are re-writing history. It was obvious from the start that the "science" of AGW was lacking and there were plenty of articles on that fact long before climategate. Romney wanted to use the power of the state to restructure the state and regional economy. He did not just dip his toe into the AGW pool, he dove in and did laps.

He is not qualified to be President and never will be.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/23/12 07:43

Four or five years ago I was reading articles by Senator Jim Inhofe documenting the fraud of global warming. Before that, I knew that the medieval warming period stood solidly against the frauds of the global warmists and their anthropogenic warming scenarios.

The data and information that told the truth was there for anyone with eyes to see. I welcome everyone else who has realized the error, but Newt should have known. That he was floating downstream instead of swimming against the liberal tide is not to his credit.

By the way, the evidence is also there against the similar fraud of macroevolution. I can see it; can you? If you live long enough, one day you will, but then will it be to your credit?

Start swimming, my friend.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact