Here are my critiques of Romney positions on energy and environment based on his wiki campaign page.  The entire page is worth your review. Covers many more issues than these two.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

I inserted my comments in [brackets containing italics].  My comments indicate the parts that concern me and indicate where Romney is confused or receiving confused advice…waffling…flip flopping.  However, if tightened up, defined and formally proposed, then he could be in a position to bash Obama and in fact change the world for the better.   He needs advice urgently.    I would be happy to connect him to expert advice.

Energy 

Romney supports increased energy production and oil drilling in the U.S. He wants the U.S. to become independent of foreign sources of oil, [so far all good] and believes that the way to do that is a combination of developing alternative sources of energy such as biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification, [ biodiesel and ethanol are wrong, misguided]  and finding more domestic sources of oil such as in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Outer Continental Shelf.[40]   [ This part is good, but fracking on the continental shelf requires taking on California ….ruled by Democrats …largest block of Electoral College votes… where about 65% of the nation’s gigantic shale oil reserves rest beneath the continental shelf off California’s coast.  The oil seeps from the ocean bottom in California and lumps up on the beaches…millions of gallons. He needs help in California.  Californians need to know that this resource and the environment will be well managed, but Romney must cut through the environmental hysteria.]

“We’re using too much oil,” Romney said. [Not so.  Not good. Wrong.  Requires retraction.  We are not using too much oil.  That’s old thinking.  In reality, gas and oil are naturally renewing resources.]  “We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy — biodiesel, ethanol, [Totally wrong.]  nuclear power  [OK] — and we can drill for more oil here [yes].  We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy.”[41]  [Yes we can.]  [So you can see already that Romney is trying to speak to the environmentalists out of one side of his mouth.  They are a lost cause for him.  He will NEVER win them over most of them are not really about the environment.  Ethanol is a political calculus problem because farmers (e.g. Iowa, Nebraska) have become dependent on subsidized corn sales for ethanol.  Ethanol has been shown to help nothing while creating different environmental problems.  For example, ethanol combustion also produces CO2, but adds different pollutants (oxides) that do not occur when burning natural gas. ]

Romney has not formally published his proposals regarding energy policy, but his 2008 presidential campaign website included a 2-minute video of his response to a question about his energy policy position.[42]   

He would consider cap-and-trade only if part of a larger global plan.   He has not offered specific targets on energy efficiency. He does not support mileage goals as a stand-alone measure, but has indicated he would consider them only if they were part of a comprehensive energy plan. He supports nuclear power as part of an energy mix.[43]  [Nuclear power in the mix is ok.  But this is a common bait and switch strategy used by environmental special interests.  Sounds good, but the nuke plants never gets approved because of regulations and never ending environmental lawsuits, thus nukes become un-economic.  So, simply saying ‘nukes’ just kicks the can down the road.  It’s a cop-out if no defined plan changing the EPA and environmental argument is put forward.]

Romney has supported a $20 billion package for energy research & new car technology. [OK]  He opposes a unilateral US global warming policy and believes that worldwide solutions are optimal. [Indicates big trouble in Romney’s policy tent.  Global warming is an international scam now running over 3 decades, as I and many others have explained elsewhere at length.  Romney’s  position here is a copout at best, and leaves the door open for the UN global warming scammers. ]   He has stated that large oil companies should reinvest profits in clean technology for oil refineries. [Well that’s OK, except no refineries have been built here for many years due to restrictions and many have been closed.  So really it’s just another copout kicking the can down the road if no defined plan changing the EPA and environmental argument is put forward.]  He supports the popular measure of drilling in ANWR as short term measure to help the US achieve energy independence. [ ANWR is not a “short term measure!”  It MUST be part of a complete about face in energy and environmental policy.]  As Governor, Romney supported clean environment initiatives.[21][44]

Environment 

See also: Governorship of Mitt Romney#Environment

In 2003, Romney as Governor of Massachusetts, said in a press release “If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts . . . I will always come down on the side of public health.”[45]Insisting that a coal power plant meet tough emissions standards even at the cost of losing jobs, Romney announced “I will not protect jobs that kill people. And that plant kills people.”[46]   [The recently proposed EPA standards for coal plants must be aggressively rejected by Romney or else he loses the election.  The CO2 standards in that EPA proposal are wrong, unachievable even if they were right.  The mercury standards are overdone and unnecessary.  Today’s coal plants emit very little mercury, most plants are below the new standard already, but the pseudo-environmentalist lunatics and media hysterically promoted mercury damage to children’s lungs in massive TV ads.  Romney needs help or he loses unnecessarily the votes from the coal-powered states…not to mention the jobs from all the coal-powered energy plants and mines.] 

Romney opposes Cap and Trade and opposes regulating carbon emissions. [Perfect.  But why all the other confusing signals?]  In July 2011, while speaking in Derry, New Hampshire, Romney stated that he mostly supports the Environmental Protection Agency’s mission, but he does not think it should regulate carbon emissions. [ He said something sensible.  There MAY BE hope!]  Romney said “We have made a mistake…in saying that the EPA should regulate carbon emissions” and “I don’t think carbon is a pollutant in the sense of harming our bodies”.[47]  [ He said something sensible.  There MAY BE hope!]

Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, initially supported regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures, but eventually rejected it. He issued a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. His staffers spent more than $500,000 negotiating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI—pronounced “Reggie”), which Romney praised in November 2005, saying “I’m convinced it is good business.” As plan details were being worked out, Romney began pushing for a cap on fees charged to businesses who exceed emission limits, citing concerns of increased consumer energy costs. He stated: “New England has the highest energy rates in the country, and RGGI would cost us more.” This ongoing disagreement eventually led Romney, in December 2005, to pull out of RGGI.

In his March 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. […] I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”[48]    [Yes, humans contribute, but it’s minor.  Yes, climate is changing as it always has done.  There are thousands of scientists/experts who will be pleased to help Romney correct his position here.  The human contribution to climate change is statistically insignificant, meaning the human contribution cannot be distinguished from the noise in the measurement process.]

In June 2011, Romney stated in New Hampshire he did, “I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe 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 have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s 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.”[49][50] (In response, Rush Limbaugh announced over the air, “Bye bye nomination.”[50]) In the same month, Romney said that “[the U.S. should] reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”[48]   [So here you see Romney’s problem…he is flip flopping and he needs help urgently. As I said before, there are thousands of scientists/experts who will be pleased to educate him. ]

In August 2011, Romney said, “I think the earth is getting warmer . . . I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”[48][49]  [So here you see Romney’s problem…he is flip flopping and he needs help urgently. As I said, there are thousands of scientist/experts who will be pleased to educate him. ]

Speaking at the Consol Energy Center in Pittsburgh in October 2011, Romney said, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.  And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”[48]

Questioned in that month about these series of written and spoken words, a Romney spokesperson said that “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”[48]  [Romney has been consistently inconsistent.  He needs help urgently.  Understanding CO2 is the key!]

Romney has further elucidated that U.S. action on climate change must be seen in a global context:  [The only action U.S. needs to take globally is to withdraw U.S. support from the UN IPCC and similar international entities and programs such as UN Law of the Sea Treaty, which is mostly driven around the UN’s environmental mission.  But, inside the U.S., we must have a complete overhaul of EPA, DOE and DOI policy with regard to CO2 and energy.]  “By the way, they do not call it America warming, they call it global warming. [U.S. action] loses jobs for Americans and ultimately it won’t be successful, because industries that are energy intensive will just get up and go somewhere else.”[48]  [Correct and happening massively as I write this.  For example, Obama already guaranteed loans to Brasil for developing THEIR offshore oil and promised to buy from them.  Good bye American jobs and guarantee of higher prices for everything.  Why doesn’t Romney take Obama down for this?] 

[Abundant and affordable fossil fuels are the engine of the economy.   

“Petroleum isn’t just at your local Gas n’ Go station. It’s found in virtually every product that you buy, own and use. Be it your shoes, your Starbucks coffee cup, or the computer on which you are reading these very words.  And I’m not just talking about transportation from the factory to the stores where goods like these are purchased and consumed. I’m talking about the petroleum used in making the product itself and, more importantly, the petroleum needed for the technological breakthroughs that made these products a possibility. 

Chew on this:  

• To construct the average car, approximately 27 to 42 barrels of oil, or 1,100 to 1,700 gallons, will be consumed.  
•  Making average desktop computer requires more than 10 times its weight in fossil fuels.  
• Every calorie of food eaten in the U.S. requires roughly 10 calories of fossil fuels.”  (www.energyandcapital.com) ]

[P.S.  I have no connection to oil, gas, coal or the energy sector except to be a user of their products.]