-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Earlier this month, Mitt Romney professed a belief in anthropogenic global warming at a townhall event. His comments have earned him criticism from the right, including from Rush Limbaugh (“Bye-bye, nomination”).
The first note about this development is that Romney’s belief in global warming is not new. In fact, as governor of Massachusetts, he helped negotiate and design the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program (the same one that Chris Christie recently exited) before abruptly abandoning it. What is new is that he’s tipping his hand to show that he won’t cater to the right wing base on this issue in the election, and also the fact, as Limbaugh suggests, the conservative base has changed its perspective on the issue following Climategate.
The question is whether Romney’s embrace of global warming orthodoxy will be yet another major obstacle for him in the hunt for the GOP nomination. And the answer hinges on whether his belief in global warming necessarily implies that he’ll support programs like cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, which the GOP base adamantly opposes.
Romney’s campaign hasn’t elaborated on that point yet. He only hinted at it at the townhall event: “It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
There are few options for the government to reduce emissions other than levying a carbon tax of some kind or imposing efficiency mandates, both of which are unpopular among primary voters, to say the least.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Romney is all for cap-and-trade.With what he’s said up to this point, Romney has put himself in the same category as Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, and Chris Christie, all of whom have expressed concern about emissions at one point or another, but none of whom support carbon taxation or cap-and-trade in the near term.
Christie presents a useful point of comparison with Romney. As the governor of a northeastern state, Christie would play into a predetermined narrative about Republicans (that they’re anti-science) by rejecting the premise that carbon emissions generate temperature increases, and that would cost him in the polls. In announcing that he was withdrawing New Jersey from RGGI, Christie attached a forceful statement of belief in the phenomenon of global warming to a convincing case that the cap-and-trade program was simply uneconomical and ineffective. In doing so, he headed off the worst of the familiar criticisms from the left, while reassuring national conservatives that he didn’t pose a threat on the issue.
Christie’s approach toward emissions and global warming might be a model for blue-state Republicans who have to reach some kind of a compromise, at least in terms of epistemology, with their more liberal voters. Although many on the right would argue that lending credence to global warming fears plays into the hands of cap-and-trade advocates and the like, that stance isn’t a political risk if the politician in question can simply demonstrate that the usual programs suggested to reduce emissions cost far too much relative to the emissions reductions they bring about.
Romney is no longer a blue-state governor, but that was the background against which he formed a lot of his platform and campaigning style. Perhaps he is going to come out in favor of some kind of carbon taxation (we may know more about that after tonight’s debate), but he could also follow in the path that Christie has set.
If so, Romney would benefit in two ways. First, he would be able to assuage conservatives’ fears about his environmental leanings in the primary by condemning cap-and-trade and other costly green schemes. And he would set himself up as a “reasonable” candidate in the general election, should he get there. Second, he would be right on the merits: almost any bill that would effectively tax carbon (i.e., thereby reducing emissions) in the next presidential term would be too expensive, given the state of the economy.
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/13/mitt-romney-and-the-blue-state
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.13.11 @ 5:13PM
As long as Romney believes in fantasy theories I can't believe in him. NEXT!
Patzer| 6.13.11 @ 10:13PM
AGW or Mormonism?
For me, only the former is a deal-breaker.
ggoblue| 6.13.11 @ 5:14PM
shutting up the global warmists will stop a lot of hot air....lets start with mitt and timmy paws....
WL| 6.13.11 @ 5:40PM
What part of ITS A LIE do these RINOS not get....NO the conservatives have not changed positions. We have always known that it is a LIE...It always has been. So-called Conservatives have changed and come to OUR way of thinking.
People in Blue states are gagging themselves on this crap.
Sorry, but anyone who is not serious enough to tell the truth about this will not get my vote.
Maybe against Obama, I would vote for MITT, but that is about it.
And stop apologizing for him please...we get enough of that kind of rubbish from David Brooks and his ilk.
Jeff| 6.13.11 @ 5:55PM
AGW is a scam and a scietific fraud ... yes, we think the globe has warmed over the last 100 years (assuming the temp records can be trusted) but that is different than believing that it is man caused and that the government can do anything about it ...
Romney clearly thinks the government can do something ... he is wrong ...
Anommynous| 6.13.11 @ 6:17PM
What's with the full-court press for Mitt? The man isn't the best conservative in the race, not even in the top half, so TAS shouldn't be giving him cover for his terrible and inconsistent positions. Let's have a principled candidate this time.
Occam's Tool| 6.13.11 @ 6:26PM
Anthropogenic global warming is crap. The science has been falsified. It's like autism and measles vaccine.
When they get real facts and discuss them in an open manner and point to arguments with properly measured data, then I'll believe.
Nobama| 6.13.11 @ 7:30PM
By putting the word anthropogenic in there you're buying into half of the big lie. When most of the sensors are in cities and those cities are growing ... more people and more cars and more industry ... then what you're measuring is LOCAL warming. A little skepticism goes a long way when it comes to anything that comes out of Algores's mouth.
NJConservative| 6.13.11 @ 6:44PM
If not for Steve Lonegan and Americans for Prosperity in New Jersey, Christie would never have pulled out of RGGI. They've been on this for a year now putting the pressure on.
One can give Christie credit for coming around on this and pulling NJ out, but his gobbledygook put forth about global warming when announced the withdrawal showed his true liberal colors. Christie subscribes to alot of the leftist enviro crap and is still going to pursue putting windmills offshore and installing those eye sores known as solar panels across the state.
CopyKatnj| 6.13.11 @ 11:50PM
Steve Lonegan has been correct on many issues and should have been elected governor because ultimately he has prevailed. I supported his effort against Christie.
Regarding RGGI, here is a new item from today 6/12:
“We do not believe that RGGI has been an effective carbon reduction system,” said Ray Cantor, a top aide to Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin. “We don’t believe the RGGI tax is necessary to get us to our goals.”
Romney isn't looking to good at this point.
George S| 6.13.11 @ 6:55PM
How about we hand Romney a resounding defeat. That will, once and for all, disabuse any future Republican candidates of ever flirting with the issue again.
bubba16123| 6.13.11 @ 8:11PM
George,I agree completely with your statement.We must do the same to T-paw too. When he thought AWG was real he signed a bill to get power from wind/solar and now the Electric companys are asking for rate increases every year of about 6-8%
Joe| 6.13.11 @ 8:26PM
According to the National Acadamy of Sciences (2011) "Climate change is occurring, is very likely
caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems. Emissions continue to increase, which will result in further change and greater risks. Responding to these risks is a crucial challenge facing the United States and the world today and for many decades to come." http://americasclimatechoices......rief04.pdf . Unfortunately, the billions the oil and coal industry make from casting doubt on the best science of the country clouds the news. Don’t be fooled.
Wayne | 6.13.11 @ 10:00PM
The doubt comes from the environmentalist who long ago sold their science for expedience. The can not produce the data, peer review the articles, produce the rules by which they supposedly tweeked the data or figured how to hide the decline. Not blame the oil companies. That is just a cop out.
CopyKatnj| 6.13.11 @ 11:58PM
There was once and Ice Age then it warmed, this has happened many time over the 4 billion years of earth history. I do not need a degree in science to understand that warming and cooling are natural cyclic events on earth. I also don't need a degree to see an excuse to tax, regulate and control people, making them the servants to an elitist group.
e cowan| 6.13.11 @ 8:38PM
If Mitt Romney is the best the Republicans can offer in 2012 - they are TOAST!
Mark | 6.13.11 @ 9:38PM
This foolish twaddle, well proven to be perhaps the biggest scientific hoax of all time continues to keep on giving. It's perhaps the ultimate arrogance to think that man could really endanger this perfect warm, wet, blue marble that G-d created for us. No question about it in my mind, AGW is the 21st century Tower of Babel. An erection by man thinking himself equal to G-d can only have ONE outcome, and it isn't good. Idiots.
Wayne | 6.13.11 @ 9:56PM
If one believes in AGW, then one must then go down the path of doing something about it. We know that, the Warmists know that, but somehow the author and Romney don't.
Rick Santorum has made an outstanding case on why he does not belief the Warmists. He is certainly NOT being anti-science. Quite the contrary. Anti-science is saying that AGW is settled-science. Anti-Science is making a set of dire predictions, then ignoring them when they do not come true. Anti-Science is taking a position about carbon footprints, then owning 4 houses, an RV, boat etc.
A Romney nomination takes Cap and Trade off the plate against Obama resulting in a Romney defeat, since he is also taking ObamaCare off the plate.
Tom Degan | 6.14.11 @ 6:56AM
I'll be honest with you: Of any potential GOP candidate to seek the Oval Office this year, Mitt is the first one since Gerald Ford whom I can honestly say that I won't lose a lot of sleep over if he is elected - certainly not as much as I lost during the years 2001-2009 when Dastardly Dubya and Sickie Dick were destroying this beautiful country. Although I could never bring myself to vote for him, Romney is really much more moderate than anything the Republicans have vomited out onto the national political stage in a generation or more. The only reason he looks so extreme these days is simply because the only way to win the nomination of that disgusting party, a candidate needs to say and do a lot of really stupid things. Fear not. I have been Mitt watching for a number of years now. He is not quite the dunce he would appear to be.
Mitt Romney's problem is that his "moderateness" is perceived by the Republican base as left wing extremism. Add this to the fact that he is a Mormon and you can come to no other conclusion than that he has four strikes against him. If the religious bigots who have hijacked "the party of Lincoln" end up giving him the nomination, it will only be out of sheer desperation; but I just can't see that happening. Casey Anthony will be named Mother of the Year before that ever happens. Don't hold your breath.
There is also the inconvenient reality of the health care plan he offered the people of Massachusetts when he was governor. It actually inspired the Big Black Bolshevik Boogieman who currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Tim Pawlenty is now referring to it as "Obomney Care". No, I think we can write off poor old Mitt.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan