Romney's Environmentally Destructive Vision for America

Republican nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have presented two radically different visions. While environmentalists have criticized both candidates, it should be obvious that one is clearly better than the other. Obama’s campaign slogan is “Forward” while Romney’s policy agenda can best be described as “Backwards”. Romney has emphasized an increased reliance on fossil fuels, in contrast, President Obama has worked towards the development of a 21 century energy economy. Overall, Obama’s environmental Efforts on energy and other issues rank him as one of the greenest Presidents in American history.

Romney’s proposed policies are nothing short of an environmental nightmare. It is not overstating the case to say that a Romney presidency would imperil the planet. If Romney wins the White House it may very well push us beyond tipping points that will make it impossible to get a handle on climate change.

As reviewed by the Sierra Club, here
are five ways that a Romney presidency would prove environmentally destructive:

1. Protect Polluters, Not People. Obama has strongly backed the Environmental
Protection Agency in its mission to enforce the Clean Air Act, Clean Water
Act, and other environmental protections. During the past four years, the EPA
has delivered big time on mercury, soot, acid rain, and carbon pollution
safeguards that will save many thousands of lives, dramatically clean up the
environment, and help move the U.S. to clean, renewable energy.

Romney believes that the EPA is “completely
out of control” and opposes
safeguards against both mercury and carbon pollution. His close
ties to billionaire polluters are well documented, starting with the Koch
brothers and including many of his advisors on energy policy.

2. Put the Brakes on Renewable Energy. Obama has been by far
the strongest supporter of clean, renewable energy ever to occupy the White
House. Stimulus dollars from the Recovery Act were the single
largest investment in clean and renewable energy in our nation’s history and
helped create thousands and thousands of new jobs in the clean energy economy
nationwide. U.S. wind power has doubled during the past four years, and solar
has grown by a factor of five. Not satisfied, though, Obama has called for
“doubling down” on renewable energy. Obama supports extending the production tax
credit for the wind industry.

Romney says he likes wind and solar “as much as the next guy.” That’s only
true if the “next guy” is the CEO of an oil company. Romney has attacked clean
energy investments and opposes
extending the wind production tax credit, even though it means the loss of
tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. He does not believe that we should do anything
to improve our country’s competitive position in the clean energy economy, but
instead should revert back to policies that prioritize fossil fuels above all
else. Romney’s energy plan would be innovative if we were living in the year
1912, not 2012.

3. All-in on Oil. Presidents have been bemoaning our
dependence on oil for decades. But Obama is the first one to actually do
something truly significant about it — two rounds
of stronger vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. By 2030, the two standards
combined will cut our oil use by 3.1 million barrels per day. That’s the amount
of oil we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf and Venezuela combined.
They’ll also create jobs, as we continue developing the automotive technologies
required to meet fuel-efficiency goals. According to a recent
study by the Blue Green Alliance, the new standards for cars and light
trucks sold from 2017 through 2025 will create 570,000 new jobs across America
by 2030.
Romney opposed the fuel standards and believes that the U.S. should continue
relying on oil. That means more drilling in the Arctic, offshore, and on our
public lands. To facilitate this, Romney would leave
it to individual states to decide whether to drill on public lands.
Unfortunately, state officials are often beholden to local mining and drilling
interests — with disastrous consequences (see #5).

Lastly, Obama has repeatedly called for an end
to taxpayer subsidies of oil companies, which are among the wealthiest
corporations on the planet. Romney, who is heavily
supported by the oil industry and whose chief energy adviser is the
billionaire CEO of an oil company, sees no reason to end subsidies.

4. Do Nothing about Climate Change. Obama acknowledges that
climate disruption is a problem and accepts the overwhelming scientific
consensus that it’s caused by carbon pollution. More importantly, he has done
something about it. Stronger fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light
trucks, in addition to helping move us beyond oil, are the biggest action any
president has taken to address climate disruption. Once implemented, these
standards will cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent.

In fact, during the last four years, carbon emissions in the U.S. have
steadily declined and are potentially on track to meet the goal that Obama
promised in Copenhagen — 17 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2020. Bottom line: In
spite of fierce resistance from the fossil fuel lobby and its political
supporters, we have been making real progress on the climate issue.

Romney, however, doesn’t accept that climate disruption is caused by carbon
pollution, nor does he believe we can or should do anything about it. On the
contrary, he believes that the U.S. should work to increase
its use of the dirtiest and most climate-polluting fossil fuels: coal and
oil.

5. Make Parks and Public Lands Pay. One of Obama’s first
acts as president was to sign
the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which was the most important
lands protection legislation in decades, safeguarding millions of acres of new
wilderness, protecting hundreds of miles of rivers, and expanding trails. In
addition, more than 1 million acres in the Grand Canyon watershed have been
placed off-limits
to new uranium mining.

Romney has questioned
whether public lands serve any purpose beyond their potential for mining,
drilling, and other extractive industries. And it’s not just lands that
currently aren’t protected that would be at risk. At least five national parks,
including the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, and Grand Teton parks, could
be threatened under Romney’s energy plan.