Mitt Romney - Energy and the Environment

Summary

Governor Romney believes in man-made global warming, but he is not certain to the extent that man is causing the change in the environment. He supports a global effort to cap carbon emissions and possibly a global cap-and-trade, but not one that applies only to the US. Governor Romney supports lowering energy use through renewable resources and increased efficiency. He proposes "No Regrets" policies which he states is encouraging the use of US and renewable energy which has the combined affects of energy independence and lowering greenhouse emissions. Governor Romney supports the use of nuclear, clean coal, liquid coal (if carbon sequestered), solar, wind, and any other renewable resource. He also supports drilling ANWR, and offshore.

In May of 2007 Governor Romney stated that he believed in global warming and that man was causing it, but he was not sure the extent to which man was causing it. He stated that we needed to find a way to reduce our use of energy, and expressed his support for numerous forms of energy development, including drilling in ANWR and offshore.

At a 2007 New Hampshire town hall, he reasserted his belief in man-made global warming, and his support for numerous forms of US energy. He also noted that the topics if national security and energy independence were tied together. He stated his support for tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles.

Later, at a 2007 Iowa town hall, he stated that previous agreements, such as the Kyoto protocols only targeted developed nations and left out nations such as China and India, which are today the highest polluters. He noted that he would not agree to any carbon capping solution that capped US emissions, but left out other countries.

This support for carbon capping schemes only if they were world wide was restated at other various town halls, along with Governor Romney's belief that man-made global warming existed, but the extent that humans were actually contributing was unknown.

Governor Romney made energy policy one of the chief components of his 2012 economic plan for the presidency. In that plan, he is critical of the idea that green jobs are created at a pace equivalent to other energy jobs, and harshly critical of the limited production due to moratoriums in ocean drilling. Governor Romney's plan consists of actions to reduce and reform regulation, increase production of energy, and expand research and development. As part of the regulatory reform, Governor Romney proposes streamlining and fast-tracking the permitting process for safe companies and procedures, overhauling outdated legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and reforming nuclear regulation to make building nuclear power plants feasible. To increase production, Governor Romney would sanction an inventory of energy resources, explore for resources anywhere it can be safely done including ANWR and offshore, extract shale gas, and partner with neighbors. To expand research and development, Governor Romney would focus government funding on research and development of new energy technologies and on initial demonstration projects that establish the feasibility of discoveries, and fund projects through a DARPA model of long-term guaranteed funding.

Des Moines, Iowa Town Hall

In May of 2007, Governor Romney took questions at a Des Moines, Iowa town hall. When asked about carbon caps, Governor Romney does not directly answer the question, but states that he would not support capping US emissions without capping international emissions.

Question: I was encourage to read that over 20 major corporations and businesses in this country support a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. My question is, do you support those companies? And, number two, What's your position, do you support a mandatory cap on carbon emissions?

Governor Romney: Well, we're sure gonna have to find a way to reduce our use of energy, and particularly foreign energy. There are a lot of people that are worried about global warming, I think that we are probably experiencing a change in our climate. Human activity may well be contributing to it, I think that it probably is ... what I don't know is how much of the change is due to human activity, and what action we could take that would change the trajectory of the changes that we're seeing. That's why I adopt what I call "No Regrets Policies." Policies that allow us to become energy independent, and will have as one of their byproducts, reduction of the CO2 that we emit ... greenhouse gas that we emit. 

So let me tell you the things I'd like to do. With regards to developing more energy, I'd like to see some of our renewable resources, biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol. I wanna see us developing liquified coal, if we can sequester the CO2 properly. I wanna see nuclear power, I wanna see us develop on own oil offshore, and in ANWR. Let's develop all the sources we can to provide for our own energy needs, and free ourselves from dependence on Achmadenijad, and Chavez, and Putin, and others who have that oil today.

...

Now, if we're going to get into an agreement with the rest of the world on CO2 caps and so forth, I want it agreed to with the whole world, not just us. Last time, when they were talking about the Kyoto accord, it only applied to developed nations, not to developing nations like India and China. But within 10 years, the developing nations, India, China, and others were putting out more CO2 than the developed nations. So if we're gonna have some provisions of that nature, it's got to be global, not unilateral. 

Hopkinton, NH Town Hall

On November 10, 2007 Governor Romney held a town hall in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. He was asked about his views on energy and global warming. He states that global warming is happening and that man may be contributing to it.

Question: I feel that America's strength is very linked to a big problem that we're facing, and that's global warming and climate change. I am concerned about the environmental impacts, and also the national security impacts of our addiction to oil. I'd like to know what your view about that is.

Governor Romney: I'm glad that you put the two together, because like you I feel that they are connected. That is, the security implications of our addiction to oil, at the same time the environmental impacts of our overuse of carbon based energy sources. 

It does appear to me, and I think to most people that the world is getting warmer. And it also appears to me that we are contributing to that. I don't know how much we're contributing to that, I don't know what percentage it is ... what percentage is caused by factors out of our control and what percentage is caused by the burning of greenhouse gas emitting fuels, I don't know. But I know that it's a good idea in that setting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I'd also like to get us off of foreign oil, and those two things are linked for me, or they have common potential.

So here's what I would like to do. I'd like to develop more sources of energy, and become more efficient in our use of energy. Those are the two halves of the equation if you will. 

First, in terms of source, i'd like more nuclear power, i'd like to have liquified coal, where we can sequester the CO2. I'd like to see us using our renewable resources, solar, wind ... I'd like more cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, biofuel, blue-green algae, biodiesel, all these sources. And the list goes on and on. I would invest substantially more dollars in developing basic science that can help develop some of these technologies. So that's the energy side.

Then there's the efficiency side, which is less expensive, which is getting more fuel efficient cars, more fuel efficient homes, and businesses. When I was governor, I proposed that everybody that got a car that got more than 35 miles to the gallon wouldn't have to pay sales tax on the car. You don't worry about that here, I know, but down south that's an issue ... no sales tax, and no excise tax if you bought a car that got over 35 miles to the gallon. And if you needed a van, if you got one that was over 22 ... I can't remember the number ... but if you got over a certain level, you got the same break.

And so we tried to encourage people to move towards more fuel efficient vehicles. I think that the combination of those things, seriously undertaken, can get us energy secure and off of foreign oil, and we can stop sending a billion dollars a day to Achmidenijad, and Chavez, and Putin, and the like. It would have the effect of improving our national security, improving our economy ... we keep a billion dollars a day here ... and also improving our environment. I'll fight to have, finally, a real energy policy that gets us on that course.

Cedar Rapids, Iowa Town Hall

On November 30, 2007 Governor Romney participated in a town hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, When asked about carbon capping and a Kyoto type protocol, Governor Romney states that he would not support provisions that were not global.

Question: One of the international communities big issues right now is crafting an international treaty to combat global warming. There's going to be a new Kyoto agreement, and then we'll start in Bali here in early December. So my question is "How would you address this challenge on an international basis, and how should the United States play a role in solving this international crisis of global warming?"

Governor Romney: One, I describe what are, in my view, some of the most dramatic things that we can do to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions all by ourselves. So the new sources of energy that are non-CO2 emitting, much greater efficiency in our cars, homes, appliances, businesses ... Those two things combined will dramatically reduce the growth, and perhaps reduce the absolute level of our CO2 emissions at some point. 

Those are things that I do for three major reasons, and different people have different reasons for liking those ideas. One is to give ourselves better security, so that we don't have to worry about buying oil from people that don't like us. Two is strengthening our economy, so that we don't send over a billion dollars a day outside our country, and three is to reduce greenhouse emissions and affect global warming. So we have those three reasons for taking those actions by ourselves.

Now what happens if we put into place a regime to put caps of some kind ... targets and so forth. Well, I think that one important principle that I want to make is this; we don't call it America Warming, we call it Global Warming. That being the case, I want to make sure that those discussions are held on a global basis. Not with an "OK what's America going to do?" and everybody else sits back and they're doing nothing. Now what was wrong with Kyoto is that it said "OK America, you put in place these caps, but China, who is now the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, you don't have to do anything. I want China, and India, ... by the way, they're competing for our jobs. I don't want to put our employers and our employees costs which the Indians and the Chinese then don't have to pay which may our jobs even less competitive. 

I will work on a global basis to get other nations to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is fair to us and the other people of the world. 

Manchester, New Hampshire Town Hall

Just after a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire in December of 2007, Governor Romney was asked if he supports cap-and-trade. He states that he would support it on a global system, but not solely for the US.

Question: Do you support cap-and-trade?

Governor Romney: I support it on a global basis. It's one of the possible solutions that I am looking at. I do not support for the US alone. I'd want to do it with other nations involved as a global solution.

California Debate

In January of 2008, Governor Romney participated in the California Presidential Debate at the Reagan Library. Governor Romney stated that he opposed caps on emissions without the involvement of the entire world, but that he believed that states such as California possessed the right to make their own laws in this area.

ROMNEY: But let's talk about our policies with regards to greenhouse gases and global warming.

I think we all agree that America should become energy independent. The consequences of us continuing to buy over $1 billion of oil a day from people who oftentimes use this money against us is bad for our economy; it's bad for our foreign policy; and all that energy being used is probably bad for our environment.

It's probably warming our environment. And we want that to stop. So a unilateral action to get ourselves off of foreign oil makes all the sense in the world.

Nuclear power, biodiesel, biofuel, all the renewables, liquefied coal, where you sequester the carbon dioxide, those things make all the sense in the world.

But when you put in place a new cap or a mandate, and particularly if you don't have any safety valve as to how much the cost of that cap might be, you would impose on the American people, if you do it unilaterally, without involving all the world, you'd impose on the American people a huge new effective tax: 20 percent on utilities, 50 cents a gallon for gasoline -- that's according to the energy information agency -- would be imposed on us.

And here's what happens. I've lived in the business world. I've lived in the real economy for 25 years of my life. What happens if you do that? You put a big burden on energy in this country as the energy-intensive industries say, "We're going to move our new facilities from America to China, where they don't have those agreements."

And you end up polluting and putting just as much CO-2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That's why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis.

They don't call it "America warming." They call it "global warming." That's why you've got to have a president that understands the real economy.

COOPER: Just so I'm clear, you said you side with the states. That means you side with Governor Schwarzenegger on this one?

ROMNEY: I side with states being able to make their own decisions, even if I don't always agree with the decisions they make.

Cavuto Appearance - Drilling

In August of 2008, Governor Romney appeared on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News. He was asked about President Obama's plans for drilling and statements that he favored expanded drilling. Governor Romney asserts that President Obama is wrong and that more drilling is needed.

MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR: Well, you know, I think he's trying to have it both ways, actually. He's — he's been pretty clear that he still opposes offshore drilling. And John McCain is in favor of offshore drilling.

Barack Obama wants to say, well, he would consider it as part of a comprehensive plan. But, look, the Democrats have control of both houses in Congress. And, if he were president, he would have, obviously, an enormous sway. And he opposes offshore drilling, as the Democrats do. And we need it in this country, just like we need nuclear power. John McCain is right on these issues. Barack Obama is wrong.

CAVUTO: Let me ask you, Governor, there are press reports now that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been telling Democratic members, "Look, I'm going to stand firm on opposing a vote on this issue, that is, drilling, but you can go ahead and tell your constituents you're for it," and, essentially, everything will be hunky-dory."

What do you make of that?

ROMNEY: Well, I think she's — she's playing practical politics.
She should, of course, allow her members to vote their conscience. And — and, frankly, what's right for America is for us to finally become energy-independent. And, for that to happen, it will require — if you will — every source of energy we have and every source of efficiency.

And that means nuclear power. It means offshore drilling. It means more natural gas. It means liquefied coal, as well as ethanol, solar, wind power. T. Boone Pickens' wind power idea is a good one.

We're going to have to develop all these sources. John McCain is for all of those. Barack Obama will just pick and choose. And, frankly, the ones he picks and chooses are not enough to get us energy independent or to affect in a significant way our oil prices long term.

CAVUTO: But, dating back to the debates, when you were still in the race, Governor, John McCain was not nearly as much of a fan for drilling as he has become one now.

Now, obviously, higher energy prices had a lot to do with that. But is he just as guilty of flip-flopping as Senator Obama?

ROMNEY: Well, I — I didn't accuse Barack Obama of changing his position. I accused him of trying to have both positions at the same time, and it's not going to work.

He's been pretty clear that he still opposes offshore drilling. And John McCain, recognizing that we're suffering from $4-a-gallon gasoline prices, along with George Bush and many, many others, Republicans and Democrats — Nancy Pelosi pointed this out to her own Democrats — people are saying, you know what, we've got to change.

And Barack Obama hasn't been willing to change. John McCain has. He favors offshore drilling, and we need it.

Iowa Town Hall

On May 28, 2011 Governor Romney gave a town hall in Iowa. At that town hall, he spoke in negative terms about President Obama's support for cap-and-trade. He stated that it would increase uncertainty, and raise energy costs.

… he came into office and what was happening that people were losing jobs, home values were going down, costs were rising. And instead of focusing his energy on the economy, he delegated the stimulus to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. And they built a stimulus which grew government jobs, but didn’t grow private sector jobs. And then he went to work on his real agenda, and that was cap and trade to raise energy costs…

… virtually very aspect of his agenda increased the degree of uncertainty that existed in the employment sector. Small business that was say energy intensive wondered what the cost of their energy would be if his cap and trade program went through…

... I also think he may be getting some inspiration from our European friends, because when their economy was in trouble they spent more money and borrowed more money. And like the Europeans, when their energy was an issue they raised the cost of energy with cap and trade…

Manchester Town Hall

On June 3, 2011 Governor Romney gave a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire. In that town hall, he was asked about his views on global warming (21 minutes into video). He responded that he did indeed believe in global warming and that he did believe that man was causing it.

Q: Will you sir state that under a Romney administration, global warming was be accepted as a reality, and that this reality will form the basis for all energy and environment policy?

Government Romney: ... It's an important topic. I actually had the privilege of writing a book at the end of my last campaign. I found that one of the challenges in a campaign was that most of the time, you answer short questions with short answers, and long questions with long answers, and your on your base, and you get one and a half minutes to lay out your views on a whole host of issues. So I wrote a book called "No apologies," and in there I have a section on this very topic. On energy, on global warming and so forth, and I indicated my views. I don't speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe that the world is getting warmer. I can't prove that, but I believe it based on what I read that the world is getting warmer.

And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don't know how much, our contribution is to that, because I know that there's been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past. But I believe that we contribute to that, and so I think that it is important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.

Now, how do we go about doing that. One of the opportunities that we have is that the people who are really focused on climate change and global warming have the same interests as the people who are pretty focused, as I am, on getting ourselves off of our dependence on foreign oil. I happen to think that buying every year a half a trillion barrels of oil outside the country, really hurts our economy. I also think that it puts us in a position of jeopardy in some respects to the energy cartels that have the capacity to pull strings that would affect our national interests, and so I want to get us off our dependance on foreign energy

So there's some things we could do to basically accomplish both. One is to use more natural gas in the production of electricity, to use more national gas in the propulsion of our vehicles. We have just found through something called horizontal drilling. Sounds a little strange, but the fact is that we use to drill holes vertically into the earth, and now we can drill vertically and then to go horizontally, and tap into those natural gas pockets. And we've developed about a hundred years of energy through this method. I wanna get that natural gas into usage in our truck fleet, on our interstate highways, in our energy grid. Natural gas is far less CO2 emitting, and it's domestic so it solves both the challenges that we've talked about.

Nuclear power doesn't generate any CO2, and it's also domestic, and nuclear power is something that I think that we have to have. So I look at our natural resources and our domestic resources and I say "you know what, America can be energy independent, independent of our dependence on energy cartels, we'll still of course trade our energy ... Canadian energy and so forth, we'll of course trade with them. But I want to get us off our dependence on foreign energy, and at the same time move to sources that are far less CO2 emitting.

I also want to see us become more energy efficient. I'm told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as a European, and more like three times as much energy as does a Japanese citizen. We can do a lot better. I'd like to see us get our homes and our systems of insulation and so forth could be far more efficient. I think that's happening, and I believe that we have a role in trying to help that happen. 

So for me, highest priority is to get ourselves off of our dependence on foreign energy, and develop all of our resources, including our renewable sources. Solar, wind, nuclear, gas, clean coal, ... By the way, we can't just say that it's all gonna be solar and wind. I love solar and wind, but they don't drive cars, and we're not all gonna drive Chevy Volts. 

We're gonna have to get our domestic sources of carbon fuels as well, that are less CO2 emitting, less polluting. That's gonna get us energy independent and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. 

By the way, any policy, ... We talked about cap-and-trade and I know that a lot of people like to talk about cap-and-trade. Look, we cannot as Americans enter into an agreement that makes our energy to beome more expensive if we let the big emitters of the future like China and Brazil off the hook. We don't call it American warming, we call it global warming ... and if there's an effort in this, it's gonna have to be international in scope.

Believe in America Act

On September 6, 2011 Governor Romney proposed an economic plan as part of the 2012 presidential campaign. Achieving energy independence was one of the items that Governor Romney pledged.

Energy Policy

• SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY REFORM
  
  • Streamline and fast-track approval processes
  • Amend Clean Air Act to exclude regulation of carbon
• INCREASED PRODUCTION
  • Conduct comprehensive survey of the nation’s reserves
  • Open reserves to exploration and production
• RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
  • Focus investment in basic research
  • Utilize DARPA-like funding mechanisms

We rightly think about energy as a national-security issue. But the energy sector is also a job generator of paramount importance. If we produced more energy domestically, millions of new jobs could be created. The imperatives of national security and economic policy can be made to work in tandem.

Producing more domestic energy would create good jobs and bolster local economies in a wide variety of energy-producing regions that effectively “export” their product to the rest of the country. While countless jobs are engaged in the actual energy-production process, they are a small fraction of the full workforce that benefits. Before the first barrel of oil is pumped out of the ground, entire industries are hard at work creating the equipment and providing the services used in drilling, production, and the long chain of supporting industries that brings energy from inside the earth to the consumer. The ripple effects into the non-energy sectors of the economy are commensurately important. If instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas we can send them to our own energy-rich centers, the nation as a whole will experience the economic benefits that we currently see other countries enjoying at our expense.

Augmenting our domestic supply would strengthen the economy in many other ways. For one thing, greater domestic supply would put downward pressure on energy prices, leading to faster economic growth, more competitive industries, and less pain at the pump. For another thing, at a time of record deficits, greater domestic supply would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue from drilling leases and royalties for the U.S. Treasury. It is one way to address our fiscal problems without imposing new taxes on the American people. Finally, by reducing imports, it would improve America’s trade balance and strengthen the dollar.

Reagan Debate

In September of 2011, Governor Romney participated in the Republican debate in the Reagan Library. He expresses support for drilling in numerous areas.

TribLive Op-Ed

On October 19, 2011 Governor Romney wrote an op-ed for TribLive.com concerning energy policy. He states in that op-ed that he supports opening the Marcellus shale deposits.

Trib exclusive: Meeting the energy challenge
By Mitt Romney
Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Energy policy is now at the red-hot center of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. And with good reason.

The United States is an energy-rich country living like an energy-poor country. We purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of energy from overseas while keeping many of our own energy resources locked up in the ground. Reversing this backward dynamic is a critical pathway to creating economic growth and jobs.

In Pennsylvania and neighboring states, we are seeing the tremendous benefits that domestic energy development can confer. Tapping the Marcellus shale deposits promises not only to supply clean and inexpensive energy to our country for the next century but also to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

We could usher in similar benefits across the nation with an aggressive plan to develop all our resources.

My jobs plan, released last month, would do just that.

It surveys all of our existing resources so that we can make intelligent decisions about where to focus production. It dramatically streamlines regulation so that government facilitates production instead of interfering. It opens up vast new swaths of territory, on- and off-shore, for development. It pursues partnerships with our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, to ensure that American workers can participate in their development efforts and reap the benefits.

Yet even if we take these steps, we should not be under any illusions. Energy policy alone is not going to extricate the United States from our current economic straits. Yes, it is a vitally important sector, but as Pennsylvania's own experience attests, energy production alone will not turn around our economy. We must approach energy as part of a more fundamental reconfiguration of our economy if we are to generate economic growth and the jobs America needs.

Our tax system is widely recognized to be a mind-bendingly complex accumulation of special favors wrapped into law. It needs to be made lower, flatter and fairer. Our corporate rates must be brought into line with the rest of the world if we don't want to continue hemorrhaging jobs to countries with more competitive tax structures.

The federal regulatory apparatus has grown into a business-strangling monstrosity. The federal government's own estimates place the cost of federal regulation at a staggering $1.75 trillion. We need to pare this back radically, keep only those regulations whose benefits outweigh the costs and cap the imposition of new ones.

Our trade policies have to be rethought. Contrary to what many people think, international trade is a job creator. But if trade is mismanaged, as it has been, it can be a job killer. We have to open foreign markets to our goods, just as our economy is itself open.

Our labor laws need to be reformed. Unions can play a constructive role in a market economy but they can also make entire industries uncompetitive. We can't afford the policies favored by the Obama administration that do away with basic democratic procedures like the secret ballot while protecting undemocratic ones like coerced campaign contributions, tipping the balance in favor of union organizers at the expense of the very workers they purport to represent.

We have to invest in "human capital." America's workforce is our country's greatest renewable natural resource. If we are to create jobs, we need to narrow the mismatch between the skill set of our workers and the requirements of the employment market. The federal government currently spends $18 billion on training. But this is through 47 separate programs administered by nine different agencies. Most of them are completely ineffective. I would turn this function over to the private sector and to the states.

Federal spending has to be brought under control. Under Barack Obama it has increased by 28 percent -- from nearly $3 trillion to almost $4 trillion. The federal government is sucking away the capital that businesses could be using to invest in new plants and to hire people. Federal spending needs to be cut; it then needs to be capped at 20 percent of GDP, and we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure that we never head down this disastrous path again.

Accomplishing all this change is not going to be easy. But all of it is vitally important. The path we're on is a dead end. The time to turn around is now. The economic future of our country is at stake.

Western Debate

In October of 2011, Governor Romney participated in the Western Debate in Las Vegas. He was asked about Yucca Mountain and states that he opposes forcing the people of that state to accept nuclear waste from other areas.

COOPER: Governor Romney, where do you stand on this?

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Congressman Paul was right on that.

(APPLAUSE) I don't always agree with him, but I do on that. The -- the idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, "We want to give you our nuclear waste," doesn't make a lot of sense. I think the people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want that, and my guess is that for them to say yes to something like that, someone's going to have to offer them a pretty good deal, as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat.

(APPLAUSE)

And by the way, if -- if Nevada says, "Look, we don't want it," then let other states make bids and say, hey, look, we'll take it. Here's a geological site that we've evaluated. Here's the compensation we want for taking it. We want you electric companies around the country that are using nuclear fuel to compensate us a certain amount per kilowatt hour, a certain amount per ton of this stuff that comes.

Let -- let the free market work. And on that basis, the places that are geologically safe, according to science, and where the people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this stuff. That's the right course for America.

Huckabee Forum

In December of 2011, Governor Romney participated in a forum that was moderated by Mike Huckabee. He spoke about the involvement of the federal government in fracking and the declaration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

2012 Campaign Website Statements

ENERGY SECURITY AND INDEPENDENCE

Meet the challenge of achieving a secure and affordable supply of fuels

We need to lower the amount of energy we use and increase the supply of domestic energy sources. Government must be a partner, not an obstacle, in this effort. As President, Mitt Romney will facilitate the exploration and development of conventional fossil fuels, remove the regulatory hurdles that prevent the construction of nuclear power plants, and address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.

The Obama Approach: It’s Not That Easy Being Green

Unfortunately, the first three years of the Obama administration have witnessed energy and environmental policies that have stifled the domestic energy sector. In thrall to the environmentalist lobby and its dogmas, the President and the regulatory bodies under his control have taken measures to limit energy exploration and restrict development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs.

Sharply Curtailed Production

Oil is obviously one of our most crucial energy resources and the single most important fuel for our transportation needs. But the 2010 BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico provided political cover for the implementation of the Obama administration’s dangerously short-sighted energy policy. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” is the notorious maxim of the President’s former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. And here it was put into practice once again. The result was a sweeping moratorium on underwater drilling that destroyed more than 10,000 jobs and cost $1 billion in lost wages.

That moratorium, which affected drilling even in shallow waters where the environmental risks were especially low, was part of a larger energy-policy incoherence. For even as the Obama administration was suppressing underwater energy development here at home, the President was talking up the importance of foreign countries tapping into their own underwater reserves: “By some estimates,” said President Obama during a visit to Brazil, “the oil you recently discovered off [your] shores … could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. … [W]e want to be one of your best customers.” The logic of barring off-shore exploration in our own waters while applauding it elsewhere is difficult to comprehend.

Similarly, the Obama administration has delayed the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which could bring enormous supplies of Canadian oil from Alberta to our market. The project could also create more than 100,000 American jobs. The result is a perverse effect. Canada has considered constructing a pipeline to its Pacific Coast instead, from where it would ship the oil to China. Our failure to move forward as quickly as possible with this project hurts our own energy supply and helps our competitors. The apparent rationale for the Obama administration policy—concern over global warming—is undercut by the fact that the Canadian oil sands will be developed regardless of what we do. The only question is whether the United States or China will be the beneficiary.

Pushing Toward Bankruptcy

Coal is America’s most abundant energy source. We have reserves that—at current rates of uses—will last for the next 200 years of electricity production in an industry that directly employs perhaps 200,000 workers. But rather than focus on refining technologies that burn coal cleanly, President Obama has been waging war on the entire coal industry. His initial proposal for cap-and-trade, the complex scheme for allowing industries to trade the right to emit greenhouses gases, would have been a crippling blow to the U.S. economy. The coal industry would have been hardest hit. “[I]f somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” declared then-Candidate Obama. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” Nor would consumers have been spared the impact. President Obama candidly acknowledged that under his plan of a cap-and-trade system, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” The legislation that ultimately reached Congress was estimated to cost $9.4 trillion in lost GDP and 2.5 million jobs over the next quarter century.

Cap-and-trade died in Congress, but a similarly blithe disregard for the economic impact of his policies prompted President Obama to find another path to reach the same objective. “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way,” he said as he directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve his goals by other means. Having declared carbon dioxide to be a “pollutant” that poses risks to human health and is therefore subject to regulation, the agency is now engaged in an extraordinary rulemaking process to impose controls on all major emitters of carbon dioxide, with users of coal at the top of the list.

Other EPA regulations targeting the entire American industrial base pose a similar threat. The EPA has issued a 946-page “hazardous air pollutants” rule mandating “maximum achievable control technology” under the Clean Air Act.

Even the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, an unlikely source of criticism for the President, said the rule would place 250,000 jobs in jeopardy. In conjunction with other regulations that the EPA is seeking to impose, the total number of lost jobs may come to be much higher. New regulations for industrial boilers—the so-called “Boiler MACT”—may put another 800,000 jobs at risk. Proposed ozone regulations might cost more than seven million jobs in the coming years. If unemployment is today over 9 percent, these regulations and proposed regulations play a part in keeping it that way by shaking business confidence. Once in force, they may drive the rate higher still. And they will certainly drive higher the cost of electricity, affecting consumers and businesses across the country.

An Unhealthy “Green” Jobs Obsession

As the Obama administration wages war against oil and coal, it has been spending billions of dollars on alternative energy forms and touting its creation of “green” jobs. But it seems to be operating more on faith than on fact-based economic calculation. To begin with, wind and solar power, two of the most ballyhooed forms of alternative fuel, remain sharply uncompetitive on their own with conventional resources such as oil and natural gas in most applications. Indeed, at current prices, these technologies make little sense for the consuming public but great sense only for the companies reaping profits from taxpayer subsidies.

As for job creation, studies show that “green” jobs might actually hurt employment more than they help it. Green energy is capital-intensive and tends to displace labor. Indeed, the track record in Europe shows that new “green” jobs came at a steep cost. Spain’s experience, for example, reveals that each new “green” job created destroyed 2.2 others. The price tag in subsidies was exorbitant, rising to nearly $1.5 million per job in the wind industry. Even steeper job loss ratios can be found in the United Kingdom, where 3.7 jobs were lost for every new “green” job created. Here in the United States, despite the Obama administration’s wishes, the marketplace is simply not absorbing green-collar workers. Of 3,586 recent graduates of a Department of Labor-sponsored “green” jobs training program, only 466 were able to find jobs. Taxpayer money spent on “green” training, it seems, was wasted.

The Obama administration’s diversion of resources into green energy has occurred at a time when the traditional energy sector—oil, gas, coal, and nuclear—holds remarkable job-creating potential. These are all labor-intensive industries that generate good-paying opportunities for workers, affordable energy for consumers, and billions of dollars of revenue for government. Yet instead of going for this obvious triple play, President Obama has been pursuing a course that kills energy sector jobs.

Mitt Romney’s Plan: A Pro-Jobs, Pro-Market, Pro-American Energy Policy

Mitt Romney has a better way. As president, he will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action: significant regulatory reform, support for increased production, and a government that focuses on funding basic research instead of chasing fads and picking winners.

SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY REFORM

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power. We need to establish a new regulatory framework, one that simultaneously enables industry to extract natural resources from the earth while also protecting the earth from the risks inherent in these activities. The alternative—of sharply curtailing our domestic energy industry—is an approach that only drags down economic growth and eliminates jobs. The world needs energy, and the United States is in a position to produce it more cleanly and safely than any other nation.

Streamline and Fast-Track Permitting Processes

Toward that end, all permits and approvals for exploration and development should be issued according to fixed timelines with the availability of fast-track processes. Procedures for issuing permits should be consolidated so that businesses have a one-stop shop for approval of common activities. For instance, once a particular drilling technique has been approved in a particular area, any company with an established safety record should be able to quickly receive a comparable permit. As president, Mitt Romney will take these steps to lift the cloud of uncertainty in which the regulatory process now enshrouds energy enterprises. Businesses could begin to invest without fear that their initiatives will be caught up in interminable delays caused by unaccountable agencies.

Overhaul Outdated Legislation

The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws need to be overhauled. Laws that require every significant scientific innovation or technological breakthrough to trigger prolonged regulatory scrutiny and years of spurious litigation are an excellent means of imposing self-inflicted wounds on our economy. As president, Mitt Romney will propose thoughtful and measured reforms of the statutory framework to preserve our environmental gains without paralyzing industry and destroying jobs. For example, rules affecting coal power plants could be streamlined to achieve the necessary environmental protection while avoiding job-killing plant closures. As described in Romney’s regulatory policy, this would mean ensuring that the cost of new regulation is always considered and establishing reasonable timelines for compliance.

Additionally, the Clean Air Act was passed to protect us against pollutants that pose dangers to human health. It was not intended to control carbon-dioxide emissions, and is poorly tailored to that purpose. The Obama administration’s efforts to fit that particular square peg into the round hole of the Clean Air Act— essentially achieving the effects of cap-and-trade without congressional approval— threaten enormous economic disruption. Romney will work to amend the Act and remove carbon dioxide from its purview.

Reform Nuclear Regulation

Particular attention should be paid to reforming the regulatory structure of the nuclear industry. The current structure is both extraordinarily cumbersome and restrictive in scope. For instance, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is equipped to review only one kind of reactor design, a limitation that dampens competition, stifles innovation, and drives up prices. Yet even review of that single design can stretch on interminably. Seventeen applications for 26 units are now pending before the NRC. It is little surprise, then, that the United States has not issued a permit to construct a single new nuclear plant for more than three decades. Compare that to France, where fifteen plants were built during the same period, or China, which has begun construction on ten plants in the last ten years. As president, Mitt Romney will seek to streamline NRC procedures so that licensing decisions for any reactors to be built with an approved design on or adjacent to an existing site are completed within two years. And he will expand NRC capabilities so that the agency is able to review and approve several types of certified reactor designs in a way that ensures safety and reliability.

INCREASING PRODUCTION

Inventory Our Nation’s Resources

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future. Yet we do not even know the extent of our blessings. Surveys and inventories of resource deposits are decades out of date—when they have even been done at all. As a result, we have only a partial picture of the opportunities available to us. A Romney administration will conduct a comprehensive survey of our untapped resources so that policymakers and developers have a full picture from which to work.

Explore and Develop Our Oil Reserves

Under the robust and efficient regulatory framework just described, a Romney administration will permit drilling wherever it can be done safely, taking into account local concerns. This includes the Gulf of Mexico, both the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, Western lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and off the Alaska coast. And it includes not only conventional reserves, but more recently discovered shale oil deposits as well. When the drilling is done off-shore, the adjacent states should be entitled to a reasonable share of the revenue, just as they are now from on-shore production. Expanding energy production on this scale would bring lower prices, greater reliability of supply, and jobs, jobs, and jobs.

Partner with Our Neighbors

Canada and Mexico are also home to enormous oil reserves, and the United States should work in close partnership with them to develop those resources. Both countries are steadfast allies, well positioned to bring their resources to market with the same stability and reliability of domestically produced energy. American participation in the development of our neighbors’ resources also holds the promise of jobs for American workers. We are already heavily involved in Canadian production and Mexico has recently begun reaching out to foreign partners. As president, Mitt Romney will seek to promote those relationshps. In addition to ensuring rapid progress on the Keystone XL Pipeline, a Romney administration will pave the way for the construction of additional pipelines that can accommodate the expected growth in Canadian supply of oil and natural gas in the coming years.

Extract Shale Gas

Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. Recent discoveries suggest that the United States may have a 100-year supply beneath our land. Extracting this gas requires “fracking” (hydraulic fracturing, coupled for these purposes with horizontal drilling), and will also entail significant investments in pipelines and associated infrastructure to distribute the greater volumes of gas. While fracking requires regulation just like any other energy-extraction practice, the EPA in a Romney administration will not pursue overly aggressive interventions designed to discourage fracking altogether. States have carefully and effectively regulated the process for decades, and the recent industry agreement to disclose the composition of chemicals used in the fracking process is another welcome step in the right direction. Of critical importance: the environmental impact of fracking should not be considered in the abstract, but rather evaluated in comparison to the impact of utilizing the fuels that natural gas displaces, including coal.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.

Focus on Basic Research

There is a place for government investment when time horizons are too long, risks too high, and rewards too uncertain to attract private capital. However, much of our existing energy R&D budget has been devoted to loan guarantees, cash grants, and tax incentives for projects that might have gone forward anyway. As president, Mitt Romney will redirect clean energy spending towards basic research. Government funding should be focused on research and development of new energy technologies and on initial demonstration projects that establish the feasibility of discoveries. This approach offers the best opportunity to promote innovation without distorting the market.

Design Long-Term Funding Sources Free from Politics

From the perspective of creating new jobs and strengthening our economy, the main line of policy should be directed toward technologies that will replace imported oil with domestically produced fuels or electric power. Mitt Romney believes the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) model—ensuring longterm, non-political sources of funding for a wide variety of competing, earlystage technologies—holds the most potential for achieving significant advances in the energy sector. Investment should be channeled through programs, such as “ARPA-E,” that seek to replicate DARPA’s success in energy-related fields.

---

Energy policy is critical to our country’s economic future. We have the natural resources to succeed. Even more important, we have scientific and engineering talent that is unsurpassed the world over. What we’ve lacked is a clear recognition that tying up our resources and shackling our enterprises is costing us dearly in every important arena. The bad news is that self-defeating policies have left us less secure as a country and weakened our economy. The good news is: we can change.

User Comments

• • Summary
  • Election Results
  • Controversies
  • Political Positions
  • Speeches / Debates