For Mitt Romney, usually a less than stunning speaker, tonight’s speech was surprising in its passion and delivery. Pundits noted this speech was likely his best. He delivered a number of compelling lines including ones that don’t quite ring true for the most obstructionist republican party in seven decades. Lines like: ‘I wish President Obama had succeeded.’ I wonder if a party that reinvented the term filibuster can honestly say they agree? If Romney felt such a sentiment, it was a good one. Sorry to see it hasn’t born out among the vast majority of republicans.
That said, the most out-of-context reference in the entire speech occurred when Romney made light of the issue of global warming. Romney, in a rhetorical jab at Obama, poked fun at Obama’s promise to help stop sea level rise and begin to heal the planet. This jab is especially concerning when one looks at Romney’s energy plan which could well be described as coughing carbon dioxide. His promise to double down on fossil fuels, including coal, will certainly do further harm to an already fragile world climate.
These assaults on the validity of global warming science fly directly in the face of fact and reality. Romney’s loud whistle past the climate change graveyard happens during a year of unprecedented sea ice melt, during the hottest year on record in America, during the worst drought in fifty years and during a year of record fires around the world.
This belittling of an issue that is sure to have ever-increasing impact is nothing short of blatant irresponsibility. Romney claims to be concerned for families, for our future. But an ever-increasing amount of harm will come to our families and our future should we fail to respond to the very real danger of climate change.
Yet the most poignant note of the convention, for me, was watching children playing in the balloon drop. What will happen to them if their republican parents are wrong in their assertions? What will happen to them if the worst potentials of climate change are brought on by a sudden increase in dependence on fossil fuels? What happens to them in 20 years when the US farmlands are even drier than they are today? What happens if coastlines start to destabilize? How much poorer, more desperate and afraid will they be in such an uncertain and increasingly hostile place?
Romney speaks of the future even as he seeks to force dependence on the energy sources that may ruin it. And he brazenly laughs at the very climate change increasing use of those fuels would intensify. History will judge Romney very harshly on these points. And such judgement will be far more harsh should a Romney Presidency steer us full-speed into the teeth of climate change.
robertscribbler 
Freddie Hebert
/ September 3, 2012I was so Glad to hear the Global warming crack , and how they all laughed , I was kinda thinking that because Romney said he supported Ethanol it might be ok if he was elected .
They all LAUGHED ! These people control the world !
We are in Real Trouble ! How Bad does it need to get before they quit Laughing ?
LikeLike
robertscribbler
/ September 3, 2012I suppose what amazes me most is their capacity to deceive even themselves. Which is one reason why denial is such a good word to describe what’s happening. But, at this point, the denial is approaching biblical proportion. It takes so much of it to look the other way when one’s own country is drying out.
LikeLike
Temitope.A
/ September 15, 2012Rommey said:
“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us. My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward. I want us to become energy secure and independent of the oil cartels. And that means let’s aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power.”
It is not important who he is, being him not the only one to share this “view”. Now, if the panorama of more and less compelling environmental issues is reduced to a single problem and a single statement “reducing CO2 emissions”, looking at this blind window can cause long and life-wasting (humans and animals) debates on the amount of influence of mankind over global warming.
But this is just a slice of the emergency we are in now, and reducing CO2 is just one step of the solution. We want more. We want a new system. We want to evolve our societies into better ones, the science needed is already there, and most of the technologies. Our current energetic system depends on massive consume of fossil fuels; it is bound to have leaks, wastes and dangerous side effects. Substituting and upgrading the existing component is not our final goal, we NEED to remould the entire structure. Unfortunately this will not be possible as long as people don’t understand that “AGGRESSIVELY developing our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power” is the problem we should be fighting against; and can’t possibly be a long-term solution to our problems.
LikeLike