75 Conservative Groups Oppose ‘Any Carbon Tax’ Days After Mitt Romney Was Reportedly ‘Looking At’ One

Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • Dozens of conservative groups signed an open letter opposed to “any carbon tax” bill that Congress might consider.
  • The letter comes after Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney told reporters he was “looking at” a carbon tax bill.
  • “A carbon tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay,” conservative groups wrote.

Seventy-five conservative groups signed a public letter to Congress opposing “any carbon tax” days after reports that Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney openly considered backing carbon tax bill.

“We oppose any carbon tax,” conservative groups, led by Americans for Tax Reform, wrote in their letter, which was published online Monday morning.

While the letter is not specifically aimed at Romney, it’s meant to warn Republicans that their conservative base is not in favor of taxing carbon dioxide emissions. (RELATED: Mike Bloomberg Devotes $500 Million To Ending Coal Industry, Influencing 2020 Elections)

Only a few GOP lawmakers have backed carbon tax legislation, but there’s been a growing lobbying effort by some groups to get Republicans to back a carbon tax as a way to fight global warming.

Big corporations, including oil and gas companies, have increasingly embraced a carbon tax. Exact proposals vary, but supporters often push carbon taxes in exchange for tax cuts elsewhere, fewer regulations or a liability shield against climate change lawsuits.

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) speaks at news conference about the Tobacco to 21 Act, which would raise the minimum age to buy tobacco products and e-cigarettes to 21, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 8, 2019. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein.

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) speaks at news conference about the Tobacco to 21 Act, which would raise the minimum age to buy tobacco products and e-cigarettes to 21, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 8, 2019. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein.

Romney recently told E&E News he was “looking at” carbon tax legislation put forward by Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons — the same legislation Coons co-sponsored with former Arizona GOP Sen. Jeff Flake in 2018.

“Taxes have never been my intent, but we’ll see what he has to say,” Romney said. “I would very much like to see us reduce our carbon emissions globally, and we’ll see if this might help.”

Romney’s remarks got a strong response from conservative activists opposed to carbon taxes, which they say will hit working-class Americans hardest and do little, if anything, to fight global warming.

“It isn’t surprising that a man with a car elevator in his garage would consider supporting a tax that would hurt the working man while benefiting the money changers in the financial temples of Wall Street,” Dan Kish, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Romney’s office said Romney has not committed to any legislation to tax CO2 emissions. Though if Romney did embrace such a policy, it would stand in stark contrast to his 2012 presidential run when he railed against the Obama administration’s “war on coal.”

“Senator Romney is listening and having discussions with many of his colleagues about various proposals, and he hasn’t committed to any legislation,” Romney spokeswoman Liz Johnson told TheDCNF.

Americans for Tax Reform Founder and President Norquist speaks during an on-stage interview with The Atlantic's Senior Editor Thompson at The Atlantic Economy Summit in Washington

Americans for Tax Reform Founder and President Grover Norquist (L) speaks during an on-stage interview with The Atlantic’s Senior Editor Derek Thompson at The Atlantic Economy Summit in Washington March 18, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst.

Even with GOP support, a carbon tax bill is not expected to pass Congress or get signed into law by President Donald Trump. Conservative activists, however, see carbon tax legislation as an ever-present enticement for moderate Republicans looking to score political points with liberals.

“A carbon tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay. A carbon tax increases the power, cost, and intrusiveness of the government in our lives,” conservative groups wrote to lawmakers Monday.

So far, GOP-sponsored carbon tax bills gone nowhere in Congress. Legislation introduced by Coons and Flake last Congress gained little traction, and a carbon tax bill introduced by former Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo fizzled out after he lost his 2018 re-election bid.

Follow Michael on Twitter

81 thoughts on “75 Conservative Groups Oppose ‘Any Carbon Tax’ Days After Mitt Romney Was Reportedly ‘Looking At’ One

  1. “I would very much like to see us reduce our carbon emissions globally, and we’ll see if this might help.” – Mitt Romney

    Reduce our carbon emissions globally.


    What the heck is that supposed to mean???

    Oh, and by the way Mitt, the US has already reduced it’s carbon dioxide emissions considerably, thanks to fracking (which the environmentalists would like to ban) or hadn’t you heard?

    Canadian provinces that have had a carbon tax for some years have not seen their emissions decrease, they’ve increased, so it’s already plain to see that a carbon tax won’t help.

    Mitt, I thought you were a decent guy when you ran for Prez, but I’m coming to the conclusion that you’re much too gullible for that job.

    • “Oh, and by the way Mitt, the US has already reduced it’s carbon dioxide emissions considerably,”

      Considerably? Well no actually. Not much change in ten years and with a solid rise last year.

      “A carbon tax increases the cost of everything Americans buy and lowers Americans’ effective take home pay,” conservative groups wrote.

      Not true of course, as pointed out a few paragraphs later:

      “…supporters often push carbon taxes in exchange for tax cuts elsewhere.”

      • “Carbon tax” is a tax that will increases the cost of “everything” for all. “Elsewhere cuts” just for some and “who”?

        • Most advocates for a carbon tax would like to see a comensurate reduction in income tax; so tax neutral, but carbon dioxide intensive activities become less attractive.

          • If you believe that a carbon tax won’t increase their overall take of our money, you’re one of three things… really young and naive, on the wacky tobaccy or just plain preciously stupid.

          • That’ll work and you can possibly increase your take home pay by refusing to work. 🙂

            Why people believe in fair tales and disregard economic principles, I’ll never understand.

          • Loydo, where has that actually occurred? It is rather like socialism, in that there are no actual examples of it working well in practice.

          • ‘Unbelievable how gullible you are. Willfully ignorant on top of that.’

            No – he’s pushing it.

          • Revenue neutral? I’ve got a bridge to sell you…

            A carbon tax can not and will not be revenue neutral. First off, if it could be made revenue neutral it would not change peoples buying habit. Things cost more but you have more in your pocket to afford them. No changing behavior (the supposed goal of a CO2 tax) unless things cost more and people have to make purchasing decisions based on their pocket book.

            Second. A carbon tax will make the price of “Everything” go up and by that I mean “Everything”. Every product we buy cost energy to design, energy to make, energy to transport and energy to use. I hate to even calculate how much the cost of your typical new pair of shoes would go up with a CO2 tax hitting every part of the supply chain. Not only would income tax likely have to go to zero but we would all need a pay raise to afford it. But here’s the catch, cost of business just wen through the roof so we all just took a pay cut or got laid off to pay for our employers cut of the CO2 tax.

            Last of all a CO2 tax hits those who can least afford it the hardest. I know, I know your ilk propose rebates for the poor. Well those rebates cost money to administer and don’t help put food on the table today when the rebate check doesn’t arrive until next week/month/year.

          • Breathing is a Carbon Dioxide intensive activity it produces an exhaust of over 40,000 ppm at the source.

          • And those rebates come from the Carbon Tax Money paid in so if Incom Tax is reduced and Carbon Tax is redistributed, the government operates at a greater loss and must increase taxes to remain Revenue Neutral.

          • Wow. Unbelievably naive. Lesson #1 in politics: you can never feed the pig too much and the pig is always hungry. It’s never enough.

          • Seriously “Loydo”! I live in British Columbia where I can tell you as a real world experiment we adopted a Carbon Tax before it became a trendy thing. It was revenue neutral and introduced without a a great deal of fanfare as such. I can absolutely assure you it is now general revenue and just another insidiously applied tax on everything (i.e., if you got it a truck brought it).
            More lies are not required thank you. CO2 is necessary for all life on earth and at low levels. Sea level is not rising at an accelerated rate, etc., etc., etc., etc.

      • Ha ha! You must think that if we tax carbon we can reduce taxes elsewhere to offset it. In other words it would be revenue neutral. “Revenue neutral” is perhaps the biggest lie that politicians and the MSM tell us on a regular basis. It’s a fairy tale.

        There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax, there is no point in a tax which delivers no net revenue.

        Just ask any Canadian about their GST tax, that was supposedly a revenue neutral tax. Everything they buy has the GST charge attached to it, and every day it reminds them of the revenue neutral lie.

      • This is bait and switch. These tax trades never happen. In the end, total tax only increases. Industry does not pay taxes, people pay taxes but increased industrial tax makes our industry less competitive.

        • Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan made a deal on taxes. Reagan agreed to not oppose a tax increase and O’Neil promised to cut spending.

          A bill was passed raising taxes, and Reagan signed it.
          No spending cut bill was ever presented to congress, indeed spending actually went up since congress had more money to spend.

          This lead to the creation of Greenspan’s axiom: Congress will always spend everything it has, plus whatever it can get away with.

    • A carbon tax is the product of imbecilic thinking – all it does is increase the cost of everything.

      Below is an excerpt from my soon-to-be-published paper:

      15. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. The real danger is not too much CO2 – it is CO2 starvation. Over geologic time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks.

      Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators pump 1000-1200 ppm CO2 into their greenhouses.

      Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event.

      During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.

      Reference: “(Plant) Food for Thought”
      (first posted in January 2009 on wattsupwiththat.com, published on icecap.us in December 2014)
      by Allan MacRae, Dec 18, 2014

      Reference: “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”
      by Patrick Moore, October 15, 2015

      • That’s an excellent line of economic reasoning.

        Unless the “global reduction in emissions” results in immediate monetary gain to the country (which of course it wouldn’t), the impact on the country’s economy would be negative (by at least the amount of the carbon tax).

        Since part of the program is for the government to issue tax refunds of an equal amount, the money has to come from somewhere; they would of course have to cut existing programs to make up for those “net neutral” payments. (How would the Greens react to that?)

        Therefore despite the slight of hand (and massive increase in bureaucracy to manage the system), it is the government who pays for this idiocy.

        And that does not count the harm in reduced GDP (and tax revenue) that the program is designed to produce.

      • Good comment. Just a quibble, greenhouse operators commonly add CO2 from combustion of natural gas or propane, which also provides heat to the greenhouse.

        If pure CO2 is added, it comes from pressurized tanks or cylinders and pressure reducing regulators, controllers and sensors are used to maintain proper conditions. CO2 is not pumped.

        • PUMP
          intransitive verb To cause to flow by means of a pump or pumplike organ or device.
          intransitive verb To draw, deliver, or pour forth.
          intransitive verb To propel, eject, or insert.
          intransitive verb To cause to move with an up-and-down or back-and-forth motion.
          intransitive verb To push or pull (a brake or lever, for instance) rapidly.
          intransitive verb To shoot (bullets, for example) at or into.
          intransitive verb Physics To raise (atoms or molecules) to a higher energy level by exposing them to electromagnetic radiation at a resonant frequency.
          intransitive verb Physiology To transport (ions or molecules) against a concentration gradient by the expenditure of chemically stored energy.
          intransitive verb To invest (money) repeatedly or persistently in something.
          intransitive verb To question closely or persistently.
          intransitive verb Informal To promote or publicize vigorously.
          intransitive verb To operate a pump.
          intransitive verb To move gas or liquid with a pump or a pumplike organ or device.
          intransitive verb To move up and down or back and forth in a vigorous manner.
          intransitive verb To flow in spurts.
          intransitive verb Sports To fake a throw, pass, or shot by moving the arm or arms without releasing the ball.
          idiom (pump iron) To lift weights.

      • Allan – I am pretty sure that the urgent need for more atmospheric CO2 (to avoid plant and therefore human extinction) is many generations away, but it still seems to me that the burning question is: How can we increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term? It would actually be beneficial now, and it will surely be needed when the next glacial period starts, but the oceans immediately sequester about half of all the CO2 we generate and are showing no sign of loss of appetite. Once CO2 has disappeared into the ocean, do we have any way of getting it back? There does not appear to be enough fossil fuel to combat CO2 deficiency for any significant length of time in the next glacial period.

        • since a colder ocean holde more CO2 and a Warmer ocean holds less, there is a way to “get it back” by warming the oceans

        • “How can we increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term? It would actually be beneficial now, and it will surely be needed when the next glacial period starts, but the oceans immediately sequester about half of all the CO2 we generate and are showing no sign of loss of appetite.”

          My understanding is that the current long-term increasing atmospheric CO2 content is consistent with the warming of Earth’s oceans during the Holocene (and yes, paleoclimatology has shown that the process is not smooth but instead erratic). That is, the ocean’s are a MASSIVE CO2 source/sink operating so as to release CO2 when warmed and absorb CO2 when cooled (the basic physics of CO2 solubility in sea water) relative to a given temperature. The current atmospheric CO2 content (by mass), and mankind’s small contribution to it, are insignificant compared the ocean-dissolved CO2 mass and the CO2 bound-up (reversibly) in ocean-underlaying carbonate minerals, particularly calcium carbonate.

          So, my first-order answer to your question is find ways to increase warming of the oceans above that naturally occurring. While I don’t think that increasing mankind’s CO2 emissions will help much in that regard, increasing the waste-heat from mankind’s use of various energy sources would help. Therefore, the last thing that we should be doing is reducing energy use now if we are at all worried about the next glacial period. Me? . . . I’m not.

          • Mark wrote:
            “I was thinking of using nuclear power to decompose limestone.”

            I’ve considered that too Mark – zillions of huge nuclear-powered cement plants – but what to do with all that CaO?

            Maybe we could pave countries we don’t like. I’d start with the ones that still practice slavery. But concrete slowly absorbs some of the CO2… … it’s complicated. 🙂

          • If you are patient enough,,, continental drift moves at the same pace as growing fingernails. Eventually The continents will move over the 2000 feet of lime stone on the bottom of the ocean making more fossil fuel from the heat and pressure and the excess oxygen will burn its way through the oil to make volcanoes, CO2 replenishing the atmosphere. Nature recycles everything.

          • REply t Max:

            Evidence shows that volcanic venting of CO2 over geologic time has not been sufficient to prevent the inexorable decline in atmospheric CO2 from several thousand ppm to several hundred ppm, as it is sequestered in thousands of feet of carbonates over vast areas. I suggest that CO2 sequestration is, in balance, pretty much a one-way street.

            It’s a question of magnitudes – my best guess is that CO2 sequestration is much larger than CO2 regeneration.

    • “Reduce our carbon emissions globally.


      What the heck is that supposed to mean???”

      If Senator Romney really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions he would be calling out China and India for increasing global CO2 emissions rather than punishing the people of the United States with a Carbon [sic] Tax, when the U.S. is *not* increasing its CO2 emissions.

      You are focusing on the wrong target, Mitt. Nuclear reactors, Mitt. Push nuclear reactors to China and India and the rest of the world, Mitt.

  2. If serious; it is time for a “Carbon Tariff” on all imported goods based on carbon input in manufacturing and shipping. It is globalism that accelerates emissions of CO-2.

  3. Romney is a moron like Flake. They are also both Mormons.

    What’s an “M” between friends?

  4. He might have well join the green new deal and the democrats.
    Wouldn’t be surprised if he turned to be in the democrat party… and I voted for him, thinking he was a conservative ???

  5. Romney is a moron like Flake. They are also both Mormons.
    What’s an “M” between friends?

    Sorry, I’m Italian and my English is not enough good to understand the mean of suh a comment.
    Anyway, I wonder why no other Politician is associated to his “faith” but those who are “Mormon”.
    Can you explain to me why?

    • I wonder why no other Politician is associated to his “faith” …

      That’s not true. In America, religious faith is a big deal for politicians. link

    • There are many politicians in Utah and the states around Utah who are Mormon. The Udall family is another example of this and they also are mostly morons.

      That is not to say that Mormons in general are morons. They are not. And they are usually honest, hard working people who value family and community, along with their somewhat unorthodox religion.

      Generally, it is the Mormon politicians who are a disgrace to the religion of Latter Day Saints.

      • Sorry, I continue to not understand. So you think that I can put together two bad politicians and say that they are both American? What this mean? Which message want you send to others?
        When I was young I was looking to USA Politic as a “new way” of it. Pragmatic and rispectful of Institutions and Freedom. Now I’m seeing that you are “reaching” the “less” level of Europe Politic. Sorry for me, but for you too.

        • In my experience, the vast majority who I have known of that faith in America are politically conservative, right of center, and tend to be strong supporters of an originalist interpretation of the US Constitution. Most I have known are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

          However, in my experience they have typical American ambivalence to the AGW issue. Like most Americans, AGW is far down the lists of concerns if they even think about it. That can be good or bad I suppose.

    • Mormons have a history of being anti-US government. Research the Mormon oath of vengeance.

      • Do you want all groups to be judged by things that happened over a hundred years ago, or are the Mormons special somehow?

          • Why would they need to?
            If no one has taken it, or been asked to take it in 100 years, it’s a big so what. Except to those who need to find an excuse for their bigotry.

            (Betcha icisil is now going to claim that I’m a Mormon.)

        • I live in Utah, I know of no one who knows about this “oath of vengeance” A small group of people who called themselves the “Danites” who lost everything and were very bitter.
          Modern, industrial, educated Mormons from upper New York State were forced to move several times ending up on the edge of the American frontier in Illinois on the banks of the Mississippi. They built a city in swampland with bricks and paved streets, were all their neighbors still lived in mud huts. Because the Mormons all voted as a block, Joe Smith announced he was running for governor. Governor Boggs responded by revoking the city charter, sending in the state troops, removing all guns from the homes so they cannot defend themselves, then burning and looting the city sending the residents across the Mississippi to Indian territory. The famous extermination order.
          He then signed into law that it was legal to shoot Mormons! The law was on the books until the mid-70s.
          Numerous request to the federal government for protection got Mormons just the opposite. When spring came 1847, the Mormons left Council Bluffs, walking for the Mexican territory across the Rocky Mountains. They left the United States so they could be free.
          No sooner did they begin to create their own empire “The State of Deseret” the Mexican American war was fight in 48, where America conquered Mexico. We paid Mexico equivalent of billions to rebuild and took all the territory from the Rocky Mountains to California.
          The Mormons found them selves back in the United States again. (Then the gold rush of 1849 sent 2 million people across to Utah to California changing everything forever)
          Mitt Romney’s grandfather found living in the United States unacceptable, immigrated south of Arizona to Mexico. The polygamists were sent back across the border by Pancho Villa. All dead 150 years ago.

          Mitt’s family Moved to Michigan where his father was governor for three terms even though he was born in Mexico. Mitt Romney went to school at BYU but otherwise never lived in Utah until he need to establish residency to run for office. He used Utah as useful idiots for his recent election, just as the Olympics made him governor of Massachusetts. Mitt is Republican in name only, just as he is Mormon in name only. His religion is money by any means necessary.
          In republican state convention, he came in third place to replace oral hatch. He paid for illegal “count my vote petition” signature collecting to get on the ballot where he won due to name recognition.

          This article has more to do with his vampire tactics of taking over companies sucking out all the equity in loans and then paying that money to himself as dividends which is how he got rich. He’s stepping up his game by applying these tactics to government.
          Bain capital’s “double impact” has invested in renewable energy’s carbon offsets. They just need Romney to make it law and they will be the richest investment firm ever!

      • Mormons have a history of being anti-US government

        Even Fondation for Economic Education (fee.org) seems to be Anti-Government (not only US), are they Mormons?

        • I don’t know about that particular organization, but my guess would be that they are not anti-government, or even anti-US government, but for limited US federal government and stronger state governments.

    • Former President Jimmy Carter, a prominent Baptist, or Ilhan Omar, a prominent Muslim, both made their religion a big deal.

  6. Someone needs to point to Mitt that we need more CO 2, not less. This is a beneficial gas that has little or nothing to with the climate.

  7. A tax is a tax, and again its a tax.

    Does not matter what you call it its still a tax. A way for a government to
    remove money from you.

    So its revenue neutral, you are told , so after they take say one dollar,
    process it via the government employees, deduct the usual “”Administration
    expenses. they give you back about 80 cents. Then they tax that as Income.

    To sweeten the theft of your money, you are told that in this instance its to
    “”Save the Planet”” After all with such a important thing as a sick Planet,
    some sacrifices are called for, didn’t you know.


  8. I have a MUCH better idea: all animals emit CO2 when they exhale from any orifice, and humans are probably the worst offenders in volume of CO2 exhalations.

    Add to this, the use of electronic media to get attention and politicians are at the head of the line in carbon emissions, whether they are speaking, eating, traveling or just existing. Their carbon-based footprints alone are far greater on an individual basis than yours or mine.

    Therefore, all politicians and others of their ilk should be whacked by substantial carbon taxes ahead of the rest of us. They’re the most guilty, so they should pay the highest tax of all.

    Also, since most of them have independent income, they should take a 75% cut in pay and only be allowed to work 10 hours per week. And no public appearances on any media outlet.

    If Romney is even remotely considering this because he thinks he’ll get the liberal vote, he should leave politics and go back to running his venture capital firm, which was his original source of revenue.

  9. These clowns that occupy space inside the Beltway are on a path to an economic war between the states. The only way for a$$hats like Mitt and others to get the message that they are supporting punitive consequences on everyone, not just the folks of Utah who elected this clown, is to boycott products and services that are produced in Utah.

    It will end up in an economic civil war because of political kabuki. Romney is a charlatan and a snake oil salesman.

  10. Economic use of the limited resources of fossil fuels is a rational objective. Tax can be a useful tool to support this, so why dismiss it upfront?

    • Wrong, and totally ignorant of economics. The free market is by far the best, and most efficient way of determining how best to use fossil fuels, not the government. A carbon tax is a horrible idea, which would only do great harm to our economy, possibly causing either a recession, or even a depression. Suggest you do some reading.

    • We are already using fossil fuels economically. That’s why this talk of yet another new tax is dismissed up front.

      The idea that government can both determine what the rational amount of fossil fuel usage should be and economically guide the economy to that level, is a notion so dumb that only a socialist could believe it.

  11. Mitt’s been a real disappointment. Just remember, he was a Republican governor of a liberal northeastern state. The circles he travel in likely have the same views. Now that he represents Utah, he needs to get aligned with the people of that state, not Massachusetts.

    • The Republican insiders have long held to the notion that if they offer up someone who is slightly less socialist than whoever the Democrats are offering up, that conservatives will continue to vote for them because conservatives have no other options.

    • Mitt Romney is “compensation without representation” – he is a true RINO. By his actions, his re-emergence into politics is self-serving and self-indulgent. I would expect Utahans to remove him from office for betrayal of the masses.

  12. This has nothing to do with being a Mormon, but it has a lot to do with being a politician. Mitt Romney is a political mistake brought about by people who trusted the “system” that brought him to the forefront. Politically both parties have leadership who believe they are at the helm of American Politics, but they are not. Americans are tolerant only to a point, and if you think 2016 rattled a few politicians, just wait. The Democrat Party is on the verge of an internal dog fight that will severely injure any coalitions for the future and remove all doubt about the moon bat politics of the so called “liberal”, but decidedly unliberal, Democrats. The Republicans are going to eliminate the RINOs one at a time. Mitt is one of them. If he thinks he can flirt with “liberal” politics, he is indeed a moron. Trumpian politic is only beginning. Jobs and well being come from people with money making money, that is the American Engine of the future. The job of The People is to keep them in line when they misstep.

  13. Mitt Romney is “compensation without representation” – he is a true RINO. By his actions, his re-emergence into politics is self-serving and self-indulgent. I would expect Utahans to remove him from office for betrayal of the masses.

  14. Mitt is a politician, and they are mostly not particularly bright people (just charismatic to their own base). Understanding science is far beyond most of them – they just echo what trusted advisors tell them, and hence the corrupt-lobby effect.

    If he wants to support something positive that will achieve a reduction on CO2 emissions, he needs to start pushing for advanced nuclear reactors and reduced red-tape to build them.

    The Green-Activists really did a number of nuclear power. People are just too gullible.

    • I would trust a billionaire that became a politician rather than a politician that became a millionaire….

  15. Good grief, just jump the aisle and be done with it, Romney. For once be honest about what you are – a leftist!

  16. It is a shame that conservatives will oppose a not-yet-imposed carbon tax, but none of them are complaining about all of the tariffs (currently imposed) that are a tax that consumers and business have to pay.

  17. Mitt Romney is a globalist STATIST….and I know the man…dined with him. Worked on his local campaign…..he’s a globalist STATIST.

    Of COURSE he wants a global tax on production and the power that goes with it.

  18. Romney is lost. Lost to the demons of unbridled political aspiration. Sad. And disgusting.

  19. Canada’s Prime Minister would like to see Canada cease to be a nation state . His most admired country … China .
    Canada has twice as many immigration offices in China than any other country and it’s not even close .
    Forget balanced immigration Trudeau is a commie lover and has opened the flood gates .
    When Canadians vote in November they are voting whether or not they want to be a country .

Comments are closed.