The Top Ten Problems with Romney’s Energy Proposal
10.It is based on the most optimistic possible projections of expanded oil and gas production.
9. It relies primarily on job predictions in a Citigroup report that — according to the report itself — are “based on sweeping assumptions” and possibly “optimistic.”
8. It would put huge profits in the pockets of Romney’s oil company contributors.
7. It muddles accountability by giving states power over activities on federal lands while the federal government is responsible for dealing with the environmental consequences.
6. It’s billed as Romney’s plan for the middle class, but the largest benefits will go to Big Oil.
5. It ignores the existence of massive subsidies to the oil companies, while ending smaller subsidies to encourage renewable energy. The platform ignores the economic insight that renewables “benefit not just the renewable industry, or even renewable energy consumers, but everyone – they are a public good.”
4. It would increase air pollution by ramping up the use of coal and oil at the expense of renewables.
3. It ignores the environmental impacts of drilling on the coast, the Alaskan wilderness, and our public lands — not to mention the effects of strip mining and mountain top destruction.
2. It makes an unfounded claim to achieve energy independence for the United States. Energy economists say this goal is “unattainable.”
AND
1. The economists’ view is that ” it is a lot less costly to control greenhouse gases now than it is for future generations to suffer the costs of climate change.” But the GOP platform calls for a fossil fuel feeding frenzy that would cause massive increases in carbon, helping to damage the planet for generations to come.
Reader Comments
4 Replies to “The Top Ten Problems with Romney’s Energy Proposal”
Comments are closed.
About Dan
Dan Farber has written and taught on environmental and constitutional law as well as about contracts, jurisprudence and legislation. Currently at Berkeley Law, he has al…
READ more
Dear Dan,
Once again you fail to mention all of the innocent people that would be murdered by implementation of Romney’s environmental policies. You should to point to a pile of dead babies and blame Romney, anything less is empty diatribe that will accomplish nothing. The EPA has solid evidence of premature deaths, why not use it?
Dear Dan,
Once again you fail to mention all of the innocent people that would be murdered by implementation of Romney’s environmental policies. You should to point to a pile of dead babies and blame Romney, anything less is empty diatribe that will accomplish nothing. The EPA has solid evidence of premature deaths, why not use it?
BQ-RQ, your sarcasm actually points to the fact that pollution from fossil fuels, in particular from our fleet of ancient, inefficient coal plants running night and day without modern pollution controls are, in a sense, killers. They foul the air, pollute the water, damage crops, literally destroy buildings, and damage the lungs and probably even brains of healthy people. Those with chronic health conditions are even more at risk. Texas aside, in supposedly modern country like the US where citizens would expect, and should demand, appropriate standards protecting public health and the environment, these plants, spewing toxins downwind for hundreds of miles, wasting 4/5 of every piece of coal the burn, should be called killers. The dry statistics–‘thousands of estimated lives shortened’–used by the EPA and others really doesn’t tell the story.
BQ-RQ, your sarcasm actually points to the fact that pollution from fossil fuels, in particular from our fleet of ancient, inefficient coal plants running night and day without modern pollution controls are, in a sense, killers. They foul the air, pollute the water, damage crops, literally destroy buildings, and damage the lungs and probably even brains of healthy people. Those with chronic health conditions are even more at risk. Texas aside, in supposedly modern country like the US where citizens would expect, and should demand, appropriate standards protecting public health and the environment, these plants, spewing toxins downwind for hundreds of miles, wasting 4/5 of every piece of coal the burn, should be called killers. The dry statistics–‘thousands of estimated lives shortened’–used by the EPA and others really doesn’t tell the story.