How a Romney presidency might impact climate-change issues
With polls showing Governor Romney and President Obama neck to neck across the country and in many swing states, it made me wonder what a Romney presidency would mean for the man-made global-warming cottage industry. Would it be the end of science as we know it, a new era of enlightenment, or simply saving trillions of dollars by immolating the climate-change racket?
Since I'm neither a fortune teller nor a computer-generated soothsayer, the following is my opinion on how climate change would fit into a Romney presidency. The main-stream media (MSM) is apoplectic at the very idea that Romney might win, speculating that he would:
- roll back the iniquitous regulations that make it all but impossible to build new coal-fired power plants,
- remove the new stringent guidelines on existing power plants, and
- authorize the construction of the Keystone pipeline.
Romney stated years ago that he believed in the theory of man-made global warming. He has recently revised those statements to say that after investigating the issue further, he thinks much adieu is being made over the insignificant amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.
My own experience is similarly identical: being a true believer in the gospel of global warming, I did my own research and discovered serious flaws in the data, and worse, how an influential group of scientists were coming to their own preconceived results, sealed and delivered to a political organization, the IPCC.
In October of 2011, Romney said, "My view is that we don't know what is causing climate change on this planet and the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try and reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us." By examining his aforementioned statements, was he changing course because the data simply wasn't holding up under scrutiny? Or were the "side effects" of adding trillions of dollars to our deficit utterly ridiculous under our narrow understanding of how the climate changes?
Obama's EPA has made it entirely impossible for a new coal plant to open and run efficiently (so you're electric bills don't spike through the roof). He has put a plug in the Keystone pipeline saying it needs further study even though his cabinet members said the environmental impact would be negligible. Obama placated a small percentage of the electorate (extremist environmentalists) because the Keystone pipeline would carry Canada's tar-sands oil to Gulf refineries. That ill-advised decision is seen at the pump as prices rise to historic highs (again).
Romney is on the record of saying that his first priority is the economy. He also said in September 2012 that humans could be contributing to a warming world, and that the message is being overstated by alarmists. Is Romney flip-flopping or are his views evolving? Are your views the same as they were four, ten, even 20 years ago?