Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart! NOW! header image 2
← →

Big Bird Beware: Denver Debate in short: Mitt wants to kill the things he loves, except the thing killing US

October 4th, 2012 · 1 Comment

What are some of the key take-aways from Wednesday night’s debate?

  • Mitt Romney has a love in his heart — yet he wants to defund all the things he loves except the one killing us.
    • “I love Big Bird.”  And he “likes PBS” but he wants to defund it.
    • “I love great schools” although he doesn’t see a Federal role for it (even as he likes what the Secretary of Education is doing in it).
    • “Now, I like green energy as well” but his energy policy concept doesn’t include energy efficiency (that “invisible energy” which is the most powerful of ‘green’ energies) and attacks wind and solar energy

All of these things that Mitt “loves” and “likes” will be defunded and destroyed if his policy concepts are enacted.

On the other hand, what does Mitt “like” that will get support?

I like coal. I’m going to make sure we continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies.

What a load of  …!  Here are a few examples why …

  1. It is interesting that Mitt wants to discuss what “people in the coal industry feel like” rather than confronting market reality: the booming natural gas industry (with extremely low natural gas prices) means that existing coal plants simply aren’t competitive in the market place. And, with technological and business developments, “new” coal plants are simply uncompetitive against not just natural gas but, in ever-more market areas with each day, coal isn’t competitive with new wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, and other emergent electricity options.
  2. “Make sure we continue to burn clean coal.”  Where is the intrepid reporter who is going to ask the Romney campaign some simple questions: Where are we “burn[ing] clean coal” today that we will “continue” into the future?  What does Mitt Romney mean by “Clean Coal”?
  3. Let us be clear, burning coal is killing Americans every single day and driving significant health issues (from asthma to mercury in food stream to …).  Burning coal is contributing to serious environmental problems — from acid rain (greatly reduced impact due to a Cap and Trade program on sulphur), to mercury in our food stream, to mountain top removal, to ash ponds, to global warming.

Yes, when it comes to Mitt’s likes and loves, the only ones that would get support in a Romney Administration are those that are bad for America and Americans.

Considering Mitt’s “I like coal”, perhaps a better “Denver debate in short” would be:

“Big Bird Beware: Coal in every stocking”.

As for “Clean Coal”, here are a few truthful perspectives …

Tags: Energy

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 sailrick // Oct 5, 2012 at 12:42 am

    How pathetic that the mainstream media is all gushing about Romney’s masterful shape shifting in this debate. He made heavy use of his Etcha Sketch skills.

    And, Gish Gallup .. a stream of authoritative sounding numbers and ‘facts’ that, sigh, Obama left essentially without challenge in the debate. The deceiver has the advantage in a debate format that is strengthened when the truthful side doesn’t do the ‘easy to undermine’ plays.

    For example, re Romney’s $5 trillion, Obama could have said something like:

    Mitt, with all due respect, you promise to cut $5 trillion via reduced tax rates, not increase taxes, on the middle class, increase military spending, and solve the deficit. You haven’t provided details on how all this would occur. And, in short, you might be able to do a few of these things but not all of them. And, you are asking the American people to “trust you”. We’ve had numerous Republican Presidents, now, who have promised to cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time. Well, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush have all promised this and, in all three cases, the deficit increased. Why should the American people believe that you can magically achieve something these three claimed they would do and failed to do?

    And how pathetic that none of them questioned his words on energy.