• Sep 8, 2011
As the Republican primary slowly heats up, the leading candidates are starting to define their energy plans they would implement if they are elected. At last night's debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry made his position clear: global warming is a crock (never mind the National Academy of Sciences, which said last year, "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment."). Given Perry's standing at the top of most polls, it's worth pointing out that he also touted his state's record of cleaning up the air – while sort of skipping the part about how the federal government played a role and how Texas "still emits more carbon dioxide - the chief greenhouse gas - than any other state in the country, according to government data."

Another top contender, Mitt Romney, took to the pages of USAToday recently to basically say that he'd drill and exploit domestic oil, gas and coal resources to their "fullest extent." He'll also push for nuclear energy to go bigger. Romney wrote that America has lots of energy laying around, but, "thanks to environmental extremism, has chosen to live like an energy-poor country. That has to end."

Somehow, we find this all less inspiring that candidate Obama's call during his presidential run to put a million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2015. That target might not be met (but it still maybe could), but it's a better future than drill, baby, drill. Nonetheless, the Guardian warns us that "The world needs to prepare for a climate sceptic defeating Obama."


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 47 Comments
      Smith Jim
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's not surprising that Perry is anti science. Perry also doubts evolution. Romney's stance on climate change reminds me of something Steven Colbert once said, "I believe global warming is real. I just don't think we should do anything about it."
      Jelly
      • 3 Years Ago
      GM sold 125 Volts in July another 302 in August, yep 1 million by 2015 won't be a problem.
        Ford Future
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Jelly
        The Honda Insight hybrid will cut you gas bill by 60%.
          Dave R
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Ford Future
          Depends on what you're currently driving. Since the 2 cars in my garage are a Prius and a LEAF, the Insight will either not affect or increase my gas bill. I'm waiting for an affordable PHEV to replace the Prius. First car under $30k after incentives and 5 seats will replace the Prius. Right now it's looking like the Prius plug-in will be the winner.
        EVSUPERHERO
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Jelly
        Hum, GM doesn't sell EV's.
          Smith Jim
          • 3 Years Ago
          @EVSUPERHERO
          You are correct. The Volt is merely a plug in hybrid that uses on average one gallon of gasoline for every 123.4 miles. This statistic comes from actual Volt owners and can be found on the EPA website. If you are skeptical about this you can find the information here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
      Dave
      • 3 Years Ago
      The President of the United States will not stop global warming. (assuming it is manmade) Increases in CO2 production by India and The Peoples Republic of China will easily outpace CO2 production decreases by the USA, Europe and Japan.
      markkiernan
      • 3 Years Ago
      Stop calling people who deny climate change skeptics! A skeptic is someone who has looked at the evidence and remains unconvinced. People choose to deny for business or political reasons.
      EVSUPERHERO
      • 3 Years Ago
      So what is Perry saying? GW is real, the scientists that believe their scientific facts are like Galileo, I am just acting like the pope and we will delay the science for a while because it contradicts my policies? When Huntsman asked him who these scientist were that did not agree with the GW being man made, he did not answer his question. So easy to be vague, and not answer the questions in these debates.
      Aaron Zollo
      • 3 Years Ago
      I am someone who does not agree that humans cause global warming/climate change, but do believe in alternative energy and technology and own a Prius. I think all possibilities should be exploited and education about hybrids of all sorts should be pushed. I am often surprised at the amount of people who either think my Prius is electric only and will run out of battery power. Many people don't have the slightest clue how they work and are afraid of repair costs and the technology and need to be better educated about they work. Aside from hybrids it would be very good to push toward hydrogen fuel cells since we know it works. The obvious problem lies in the Hydrogen fuel station infrastructure. Without some major funding we will not see that infrastructure built for some time. Until batteries can be more quickly recharged then hydrogen seems the obvious direction. The cost is less expensive as far as fuel goes and the air will be less polluted as a result. Everyone will be happy whether you believe in human caused climate change or not.
        Smith Jim
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Aaron Zollo
        Why do you ignore the many lines of evidence that global warming is caused by the 30 billion tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere every year? Are you also doubtful about evolution?
      Smith Jim
      • 3 Years Ago
      If you are skeptical about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) look at the following statement and ask yourself if this applies to you. Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. (from the website, skepticalscience.com) If you are skeptical but are willing to objectively look at the evidence the website mentioned above is an excellent source of information.
      Ford Future
      • 3 Years Ago
      Great. Pollute us into Global Warming Disaster. Go Mitt! Plus destroy Social Security. And Jobs? Don't make me laugh: Jobs will be in China.
      AssassinX
      • 3 Years Ago
      Ahh, looks like Huffington runs this AOL property too.
      Roy_H
      • 3 Years Ago
      I used to be a supporter of AGW and concerned that we needed to prevent it. However I have recently changed my stance. I no longer consider warming per-se an important issue. I have read about reindeer bones being found on the north east coast of Greenland indicating a much warmer climate about 2-3 thousand years ago, and also about 7-8 thousand years ago. Excess CO2 was not the cause. However we are destroying the planet with pollution. CO2 is acidifying our oceans and killing off ocean life, if allowed to continue this could eventually kill us all. We need to remove pollution of all sorts, and restore balance of CO2 to get our planet back to a sustainable and nice to live in mode. The rational has changed, but the goal is the same.
        Roy_H
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Roy_H
        There is a solution. We should build LFTRs, see flibe-energy.com. Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors are inherently safe, naturally load following, use cheap non-enriched thorium, and do not produce any long term radio-active waste. This is proven technology, invented in the 1960s but abandoned because they were not suitable for building bombs. It we had these going then energy would be cheap and non-polluting, and conserving energy would be a moot point. It is a fact that cheap energy drives a strong economy.
      Dave D
      • 3 Years Ago
      Has anyone figured out that "job creators" is actually a code word for rich people who create jobs...by investing in China's hot stock market and shutting down their factories here to "create jobs" in Southeast Asia. Think I'm kidding? A guy I know just had his company shutdown 100 jobs that were barely above minimum wage and move them to Bangalore because they got tax breaks to cover the cost. They got to write off nearly $250k worth of "costs" associated with the shutdown and move. A write off is supposed to be when a company risks something and it doesn't work out and they have to write off the cost. When did it become a way to substitute workers and factories here for some in Mexico or Southeast Asia? That company completely ignores the fact they are a service based company who just reduced another 100 jobs from the US economy...just like all their friends are doing. And then they wonder why there is nobody left to buy their service. We have started running the US economy as a LESS THAN zero sum game and the winner is the company who stays as close to zero as they can compared to their peers. Then the CEO and shareholders of that company get to keep extra money from all the people they've screwed. Way to go America. We've become a giant prostitute.
        Ford Future
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dave D
        Obama tried to shut down that tax credit, boy, did the right wing put up a fuss. You could almost say they were Traitor's fighting against the interests of Americans.
      Stacey
      • 3 Years Ago
      Canidate #1: I say your 5 cent titanium tax goes too far. Canidate #2: And I say your 5 cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough.
    • Load More Comments