Saturday, June 4, 2011

Mitt Romney and Global Warming

For those who will not read Mitt's book out fear they may no longer be able to state the ongoing convenient insult that they don't know what he stands for, I just looked up what he wrote. Contrary to Romnots' hopes, believing that global warming may be possible, does not automatically translate into liberal support for cap and trade along with government programs and spending to make us compliant with leftist scientists' visions. Again, just to be clear: belief in global warming does not necessarily equal support for government intervention. I know some will be disappointed with this revelation, but they'll get over it.

He mentions what everyone knows, that people are split on whether global warming exists and whether mankind has any impact. He lists a number of solutions that people have proposed over the years so as to analyze them, which he clearly enjoys doing. He himself thinks that there is climate change, but that cycles have been going on naturally for thousands of years. He thinks humans could be contributing, but doesn't profess to know how much. He is against any steps that harm economic growth--what good is taking draconian steps that will have little or no impact?

Given that developing countries, especially China, are unwilling to go along, even if man-made global warming were real, why cripple one's own economy in the process? "Even extreme mitigation measure taken by the US and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions. Massive spending--or even worse, borrowing for emission reduction--would only make us less able to remediate the effects of warming later."

He wraps up his thoughts with his "no-regrets" stance and defines this as "taking action only when doing so is also consistent with our objective of reducing our dependence on foreign so
urces of oil. Internationally, we should work to limit the increase in emissions in global greenhouse gases, but in doing so, we shouldn't put ourselves in a disadvantageous economic position that penalizes American jobs and economic growth."

To put it another way, if we're doing things that stimulate our economy and job creation, and we see some opportunities to help make the world a cleaner place while we're at it, then why not. I think many of us have forgotten why we are against the liberals' view points on global warming and have become averse to any associated vocabulary, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, a cleaner world, etc. We aren't against cleaner air, people! We are against the government getting involved and regulating business away from job growth and economic strength in pursuit of some fantasy that we can change the direction of the global climate.


Anonymous said...

Good work, hamaca. Thank you.

Now, if we could just get everyone in the United States to read Romney's book . . .


hamaca said...

Thanks, Martha.

I've not read his book cover to cover, though I hope I make the time to do so. For now, I've used it as a reference when people make claims on his stances or try to imply he has no stance.

I wish each candidate would write similar books detailing their stances on the issues--and why.

Anonymous said...

Good article Hamaca! I started reading No Apology, but when my schedule got too hectic I let it roll on CD in my car, finished it in a few weeks. Hearing his words from his voice is a nice touch, too :-)

Mitt's position on global warming is nuanced, honest, and realistic, with america's interests first. I think it will resonate with a lot of people as fair and probable if he is given a fair chance to state it.

Pablo said...

Hamaca, you stated better what I attempted to state. Belief in science is not big government. Mitt does not support Cap and Trade.

And, just in case, anyone here is curious. 95% of scientists who have written about climate science agree with Mitt.

Ohio JOE said...

Marvelous post Hamaca. It is this kind of writing which will make Tea Partiers at least consider voting for Mr. Romney in a general election. Instead of attacking Conservatives you illustrate an issue where there is much common ground between Mr. Romney and Conservatives. Shhhh, it would be good for your camp to have more of you and Get Real. Where have they gone.

GetReal said...

Thanks for the mention, OJ.

Doug NYC GOP said...

You're a real wise guy, Hamaca.

Think you're pretty cute putting truth there, don'tcha?

Well all I can say is....Thanks!

Excellent post.

BOSMAN said...


I thought I was a Mittfit.

Now I know it's ok to like clean air and be conservative at the same time.

Revolution 2012 said...

Excellent post Hamaca.

Let's hope your COMMON SENSE and FACTUAL argument, doesn't fall on deaf ears.

hamaca said...

Thanks, Mike. What I like about Mitt's book is that his analytical nature come out. He's the type that likes to understand all the angles and perspectives regarding the issues so that he's not just selecting what for him is the right stance (on issues that are not clearly conservative or liberal), but is able to elaborate why. I think this approach can appeal to people who otherwise would have supported other views, but who are open to this sort of discussion. They usually don't want to treated disrespectfully--most people will close up rather than engage.

hamaca said...

Pablo--thanks for your comment. Exactly, Mitt does not support cap and trade.

Even though we Romney supporters got some leverage out of Pawlenty having stated that mandates were something worthy of looking before he decided against them for MN, I think he and Mitt share the same desire to understand more behind various ideas so they can have a discussion with people with opposing views, rather than just dictate to them.

MItt took a look at cap and trade before understanding what it was really about and rejecting it because it was not conservative--nor was it conducive to a stronger economy.

hamaca said...

OJ--I appreciate the comments! I hope that no one will be offended by the supporters of any candidate to the point that they'd have a hard time pulling the lever for them in the general election.

Your comment about finding common ground might be a good way for different camps to engage in dialogue, rather than how it's typically done. Not saying a good argument isn't fun now and then, but it's probably not healthy for a party's camps to constantly be at each others' throats and focusing only on differences.

hamaca said...

Thanks, Doug! We gotta make sure Tim doesn't corner the market on truth telling!

hamaca said...


"Now I know it's ok to like clean air and be conservative at the same time."

Who knew? I wonder what other similar discoveries are out there!

hamaca said...

Thanks, Rev. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with Romney. I would have thought they'd want to do so based on an accurate understanding of what his stance really is, same as they'd anticipate for their own candidate.

It's a difficult proposition on all sides with so much spin out there.