Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 ways they differ on climate change

As recently as 2008, presidential candidates openly sparred over their own plans for dealing with climate change. This year it's such a touchy topic that both sides prefer instead to talk about energy policy – a kind of proxy. Here are four ways the candidates differ.

2. Cap and trade to regulate greenhouse gas emissions

Jae C. Hong/AP/File
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. 'President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.... My promise is to help you and your family,' Mr. Romney said.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney backed a market-based plan to put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and trade emission permits or credits. "This is a great thing for the commonwealth," Romney said in 2005 of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. "We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs."

But news reports soon began to appear saying Romney was cooling on the new regional pact. On Dec. 14, just prior to the pact's public unveiling, Romney rejected it, because other states refused to include his proposed "safety valve" pricing mechanism that he said would prevent costs to utilities from spiraling out of control.

"He believes we should not spend trillions of dollars on job-killing measures like cap and trade," a spokesman for his presidential campaign, speaking on background, wrote in an e-mail.

Since becoming president, Obama has unambiguously backed federal cap-and-trade legislation that would use a market-style mechanism to ratchet down US emissions of greenhouse gases, especially on power plants.

“As we move forward over the next several years, my hope is, is that the United States, as one of several countries with a big carbon footprint, can find further ways to reduce our carbon emissions,” Obama in said Canberra, Australia, in November 2011.

2 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.