The post-debate analysis is in full swing, and while pundits are talking about Governor Romney's aggressive manner and President Obama's subdued performance, the real story is how many times Romney strayed from the facts. On energy issues alone, he not only distorted the truth but he also misrepresented his own positions.
It began when Romney said he supported clean energy. This passing remark came after he spoke at length about expanding oil and gas drilling and building the Keystone XL pipeline for dirty tar sands oil. It also came after he let us know: "I like coal."
I am not surprised Romney paid lip service to clean energy. Nine out of 10 Americans say developing renewable energy should be a priority for the president and Congress, and that includes 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Independents. And two thirds of Americans want to extend tax incentives for clean energy.
But Romney's own positions would thwart the rapidly growing clean energy economy and the tens of thousands of jobs it creating. He wants to kill incentives for wind power--incentives that enjoy strong bipartisan support, perhaps because more than 80 percent of installed wind power comes from Republican-majority states. And his economic plan calls for cutting clean energy investments by 90 percent, down to just $1 billion in 2014.
Romney repeatedly criticized Obama for his clean energy incentives. But once again, his facts were wildly off base. He cited the $90 billion the Obama administration invested in renewable energy projects, energy efficiency measures for homeowners, public transit, and other stimulus projects, and tried to claim that clean energy received more government help than fossil fuels.
The historic record proves otherwise. A study of by DBL Investors found that the oil and gas companies have received $446.9 billion in subsidies (1918-2009) and the nuclear industry scored $185.7 billion (1947-2009). Up until 2009, meanwhile, the renewable sector outside of biofuels had gotten only $5.9 billion.
The $90 billion the Obama administration has invested in clean energy since then has already delivered amazing returns: wind power has doubled in three years, solar power has quadrupled in four years, and more than 1 million homes have received energy-saving retrofits. More than 150,000 Americans have jobs making parts for and assembling clean cars--hybrids, electric cars, and other advanced vehicles that weren't even available 10 years ago. And consumers can find nearly 60 fuel-efficient models in showrooms today--up from 27 in 2009. These cars are putting more money in Americans' pockets and helping American automakers come back from the brink.
Romney tried to ignore this success by saying half of Obama's clean energy investments had failed. That's simply false. While a handful of companies granted loan guarantees have folded, hundreds of other companies are succeeding. In fact, the failure rate for clean energy loan recipients was only 1.4 percent by the end of 2011.
When all the smoke clears and the conversation shifts from style to substance, voters will realize the clear choice before them. One candidate will keep America hooked on the same fossil fuels that have been polluting our air for decades. The other has presided over the largest increase in clean energy in our nation's history and strengthened public health and environmental protections. Those are the facts and hopefully they will garner greater attention as we head into the next debate.
Follow Heather Taylor-Miesle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NRDC_AF
Brian Jencunas: Obama's Failure Gives Romney Debate Victory and Possible Path to the White House
PS: Romney used illegal debate techniques called 'flooding &/or galloping'* Pass it on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-ritz/romneys-creationist-debat_b_1941995.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
http://www.jillstein.org/issues
What we need is a reduction of regs without the "all or nothing" mentality.
See, it's not all about cut spending OR raise taxes...
Instead, we need to utilize that "all or nothing" attitude to wage economic war against any "rich" who do NOT hire here, who use "overseas slaves" and then sell their wares to us. While we're at it, tariff China and company so as to make it easier for the rich to re-hire here in America... Then we will have the money to fix infrastructure, feed the (resulting fewer) poor and finally have a right to say "get off welfare")!
Only then will we be non divided enough (and to have the economic means) to build the next amazing (and almost clean) energy infrastructure!
Unfortunately, Obama targeted coal reduction through natural gas and renewables. Coal is domestic by the way.
US coal subsidy -$345 billion
Economists concluded “Coal-Fired Power Plants Have Air Pollution Damages Larger Than Their Value Added”
Coal = jobs ... ask a coal miner.
We are not plants. CO2 is toxic to humans. We evolved with less than 300ppm.
rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste energy and fuels backing it up, charging electric cars, is far cheaper than oil wars, climate change, and 7B people poisoning by CO2.
Without all the breaks, fossils and nukes would fail in the market.
Our fastest growing industry is solar.
We are not plants. CO2 is toxic to humans. We evolved with less than 300ppm. " Check your facts. CO2 is just shy of 400 ppm.http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ OSHA's short term exposure limit is 30,000 ppm and 8-hour exposure limit is 5,000 ppm.http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_225400.html
Total breaks for nukes and fossil are currently 100 times total green breaks.
You won't even see the offshore wind turbines.
Nukes get 500M$ per reactor per year. Clean cola too. Oil gets trillion dollar wars.
Wake up. Money rules. And they don't love us.
There are literally dozens of bloggers pointing out Romney's fabrications. Virtually every "fact" he cited was incorrect...Ironic coming from someone who claims his opponent has a difficult relationship with the truth.
Correcting his inaccuracies in real time would have taken up the entire debate and then some....where would you even begin...how can you expect a real debate of the issues when one debater supports his arguments with made up "facts" and figures not based in reality?
Romney's strategy looks like it has paid off for now...especially for those who are going to let this debate make up their minds. If they do that, they deserve what they get!
Candidates need to learn to at least TRY to tell the truth...hopefully the American people won't reward this type of campaign!
Solar wind and waste are our only viable greenery sources long term.
Compare the 90 billion spent on green energy to something comparable - like the trillions spent in Iraq to ensure access to their oil.
Solyandra installed 100MW of solar that will produce over 500M$ worth of clean electricity.
Nukes and clean coal get over 500M#$ per reactor per year in breaks. Nukes have a CBO expected 50% loan default rates, versus 1.5% for green energy.
How much does the 54% of our f taxes bother you?
How much did Cheney's fossils and nukes give aways bother you?
The volts is on of hthe top rated cars in the world.
50 x 2.8 is 90
That's right folks in Romney World 140 is actually 90.
Bill! Where are you!
We need some Math over here!
This election will decide if the voters care.
Here's to clean energy.