Another day, another flip-flop. At Sunday's Mike Huckabee-hosted presidential forum, Republican candidate Mitt Romney offered up yet another flip-flop, this time on reducing global warming pollution from cars and trucks. He said that he would "get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks."
Back in 2004, then-Governor Romney signed Massachusetts up to copy California in implementing carbon emissions standards for light duty vehicles. The car companies pretty much hated that because it created a dreaded "patchwork," in which the standard would apply in about half of the states but not in the rest.
Luckily, the Obama administration stepped in. The president brokered a deal to come up with a single national standard to reduce carbon pollution, which the car companies, the states, unions, EPA, and environmental groups like NRDC could all agree on. He made it happen primarily through a rule issued by EPA, which reduces pollution, saves consumers money, and reduces confusion for industry. That program was so successful that last month, EPA proposed to extend and strengthen the program through 2025.
Back to Romney. Of course, no one likes a flip-flopper. But the truth is, sometimes it makes sense to change your mind. You get new information, like former climate-skeptic Richard Muller who came to his senses and realized the globe really is warming up. That's what makes Romney's latest flip-flop so infuriating. Almost every bit of new information we have shows that the need to reduce global warming pollution is greater than ever and the dangers are worse than we previously thought.
And the rules that Romney once supported, but now decries, provide tremendous benefits. The new set of rules would save over 4 billion barrels of oil. Owners of new efficient vehicles would save up to $4,400 over the life of the vehicle. Since he doesn't seem to have any problem with changing his positions, can we humbly suggest that the governor just go ahead and switch back to the position that is good for industry, good for consumers and good for the planet?