Green Lobby giving Romney a wink and a nod?

posted at 3:40 pm on March 6, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

As early as last fall, some analysts were looking at Mitt Romney’s “shifting” views when it comes to climate change science. The story they were painting in October was far from subtle.

The longer he runs for president, the more doubts Republican front-runner Mitt Romney seems to have about the science behind global climate change.

Speaking at a closed-door fundraiser Thursday in Pittsburgh, Romney’s position on the causes of global warming continued the rightward shift that has been underway for several months. “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,”

Now Politico has done some digging into political contributions received by the Romney Campaign and the results are raising a few eyebrows. Some serious Green Warriors appear to be betting heavily on the idea that Romney’s conversion on climate change may be temporary and, once in office, he might come back around to seeing things their way.

Will Mitt Romney flip-flop on climate change if he’s elected president?

Some big donors are betting on it.

Romney and his super PAC have taken millions from funders with strong green streaks — despite the fact that the former Massachusetts governor has run to the right in the primary, proclaiming doubts about global-warming science and trashing President Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas emissions policies.

Julian Robertson, founder of the Tiger Management hedge fund, helped put cap-and-trade legislation on the map with $60 million in contributions over the past decade to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Now, Robertson has given $1.25 million to Romney’s Restore our Future super PAC, plus the maximum $2,500 to the Romney campaign.

Apparently she’s not the only one. Former Gov. Thomas Kean of New Jersey, another big Cap and Trade guy, is quoted as saying, “[M]y hope is, as time goes on, he will understand that not everybody agrees on how you deal with these issues, but I hope he will agree with 99 percent of the scientists who believe this is an issue that we have to deal with.”

We should note here that the candidates are not responsible for every person who makes legal contributions to their campaigns or to Super PACs who support them. Similarly, they are not accountable for every single thing their supporters say. But this is sure to spur questions. Should Mitt go so far as to return the money? Or at least thank them for their contribution but make a public statement to “set the record straight” as to his plans on these issues once in office?

If so, the list might take a while to go through, as the group of donors includes quite a few more than just those two.

Among the other green Romney donors is Texas businessman and philanthropist Trammell S. Crow, founder of Earth Day Dallas and winner of the Republicans for Environmental Protection’s Green Elephant Award in 2007. Crow and his family have given $71,000 this cycle to Republicans, including $15,000 to the Republican National Committee and $5,000 to Romney, according to donation data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

“I am voting for Mitt Romney and I believe in global warming,” Crow said in a statement to POLITICO.

This seems rather odd timing, given that some of the listed contributions date back far enough that we should have known about it before now. Then again, I suppose I’m just suspicious by nature.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

But but but but he’s severely conservative and stuff.

angryed on March 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Now Politico has done some digging into political contributions received by the Romney Campaign and the results are raising a few eyebrows.

I wonder when they will start vetting our actual sitting President.

Go RBNY on March 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I have no doubt Romney will support all forms of energy but i don’t think he will waste huge subsidies on green

gerrym51 on March 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I have no doubt Romney will support all forms of energy but i don’t think he will waste huge subsidies on green

gerrym51 on March 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

ditto…

jimver on March 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM

The Greenies are hedging their bets in case Obama loses. We’re going to keep seeing questions of this nature pop up about Romney during the election, along with the MSM attacks.

As for whether Romney supports this stuff, of course he does. I don’t think there is any major liberal policy which Romney does not support.

Doomberg on March 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Naw, Mitt will turn his back on all of his big donors…Green, Wall Street, all the lobbyists he has taken money from.
Mitt will listen to his conservative supporters.
HAHAHHAHA! I crack myself up sometimes…even I can’t be that sarcastic.

right2bright on March 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Doomberg, which candidate are you supporting?

The Count on March 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

That makes no sense. How else would he “support” other energies if not through subsidies? The fact all this green nonesense needs support from the govt is because it is not feasible on its own. If there was money to be made from windmills and electric cars, companies would be out there building windmills and electric cars.

angryed on March 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I’m less worried about continuing subsidies (which are bad) than Romney pushing Cap & Trade, which would be much worse.

Doomberg on March 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I hope he takes money from wherever he can get it. We’re going to need every last cent.

The Count on March 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I have no doubt Romney will support all forms of energy but i don’t think he will waste huge subsidies on green

gerrym51 on March 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

That makes no sense. How else would he “support” other energies if not through subsidies? The fact all this green nonesense needs support from the govt is because it is not feasible on its own. If there was money to be made from windmills and electric cars, companies would be out there building windmills and electric cars.

angryed on March 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Naw, Mitt will turn his back on all of his big donors…Green, Wall Street, all the lobbyists he has taken money from.
Mitt will listen to his conservative supporters.
HAHAHHAHA! I crack myself up sometimes…even I can’t be that sarcastic.

right2bright on March 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

You will be re-educated. Willard-asia has always been at war with Mitt-asia.

ebrown2 on March 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

You know what this helps…?

… That’s right,

“The War on Women…!!!”

/

Seven Percent Solution on March 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Meh. I’m the first in line to bemoan Romney’s lack of political principle and perfect willingness to govern from the left, but let’s keep his duplicity in perspective.

Romney’s two-faced because he’s courting popular opinion. There’s very little in the green agenda that’s politically popular right now. I guess by electing Romney, we’re not going to have any rollback on national parks or abolition of the EPA, but the man certainly wouldn’t tell Canada to send their oil to China in the middle of a run on the gas stations in order to heal the oceans.

HitNRun on March 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

*snickering* Just when I thought I would never see a greenie support an “R” in any fashion… has H@ll frozen over?

Turtle317 on March 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I don’t trust Mitt and I don’t like any of the candidates.

Squirrel 2012

txag92 on March 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

This is the new slander tactic. Both sides using it.

jeanie on March 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Will Mitt Romney flip-flop on climate change if he’s elected president?

Some big donors are betting on it.

Romney and his super PAC have taken millions from funders with strong green streaks — despite the fact that the former Massachusetts governor has run to the right in the primary, proclaiming doubts about global-warming science and trashing President Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas emissions policies.

I think these donors are making the right bet and Republicans who believe in Romney’s conversion are being played for fools.

sharrukin on March 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Will Acorn be the next Romney donar?

idesign on March 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Why are Watermelon groups giving to the “Republican?”

MNHawk on March 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

That makes no sense. How else would he “support” other energies if not through subsidies? The fact all this green nonesense needs support from the govt is because it is not feasible on its own. If there was money to be made from windmills and electric cars, companies would be out there building windmills and electric cars.

the operative word was HUGE. Targeted money for reasearch as oppossed to vast sums supporting production

gerrym51 on March 6, 2012 at 3:49 PM

the operative word was HUGE. Targeted money for reasearch as oppossed to vast sums supporting production

gerrym51 on March 6, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Yeah, that’s why the green lobby is giving him millions in contributions. To have access to the $100K he will give out in targeted research grants. Think McFly, think.

angryed on March 6, 2012 at 3:49 PM

*snickering* Just when I thought I would never see a greenie support an “R” in any fashion… has H@ll frozen over?

Turtle317 on March 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

No, but what might freeze over is the climate change gravy train. If Republicans take the Senate and the WH this particular gravy train just might be derailed. These people are actually thinking about their future paychecks.

NotCoach on March 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

It is a good bet for the greens. After all, it’s a good bet to take that Romney will flip flop on something. It’s like betting on a serial philanderer. You KNOW he’s going to cheat on his wife again, it’s just a matter of time, really. Besides, there’s no reason to expect that Romney won’t be a green pusher… he has been in the past. Just like he’s been pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-big government, anti-constitution, etc., etc.

Warner Todd Huston on March 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Trying to buy influence does not equate it bought influence.

galtani on March 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Recognizing its gotten warmer but rejecting the “settled science” that humans are causing it is a position only the ignorant could quibble with. If certain rich green morons can’t figure out that Romney is not their friend, that’s not Rombet’s problem.

ParisParamus on March 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM

He might as well use them and lose them, Obama has been great with all his broken promises.

Blacksoda on March 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I’m less worried about continuing subsidies (which are bad) than Romney pushing Cap & Trade, which would be much worse.

Doomberg on March 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Even Obama wouldn’t go near crap-and-betrayed. You think it was Harry Reid’s call to let it die in the Senate? The Administration didn’t wanna have it pass both chambers of Congress and then be forced to either sign it into law(which would’ve been more unpopular than even Obamacare) or veto it and destroy their relationship with the environmentalist wackos.

Doughboy on March 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

This morning, I felt cleansed and purified entering my polling place and casting a ballot against Willard.

vilebody on March 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Hopefully, the joke will be on them (and not us).

teri_b on March 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Nothing but a protest vote from the green on the reds.

As the person (O) who actually will not have to flip to be on their side but just come out in the open has failed them to come out in the open.

tjexcite on March 6, 2012 at 3:59 PM

MA Mitt, admitted progressive, who took the most aggressive policy in the nation on carbon caps in the state of MA, is in with the greens. And with the Obamacare people. And who knows who else?
What are we thinking? A Romney nomination means a deadened base, and hence a strong likelihood that a 3rd party movement gains traction.

A disaster seems to be setting sail. A titanic disaster.

anotherJoe on March 6, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said.

On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”

I can’t imagine why the greenies think Romney is on their side? /

sharrukin on March 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I sent him $25. I practically own him.

hanzblinx on March 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Just how stupid do you have to be to believe anything Politico puts out?

They are leftist hacks, propagandists who were part of the original news-managing attempt with “Journ-O-List” and are without doubt part of its successor which has been kept secret.

Every single item they publish is designed to help Obama and the Democrats in some way. This is no exception.

Adjoran on March 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM

No way would Romney follow the Obama example of funding more Solyndras. Nobody is that stupid.

echosyst on March 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM

This seems rather odd timing, given that some of the listed contributions date back far enough that we should have known about it before now. Then again, I suppose I’m just suspicious by nature.

Suspicious? Or just immature? How about gullible? Why do conservative bloggers rely so heavily on Politico anyway? It seems rather odd…

cicerone on March 6, 2012 at 4:06 PM

The original and great Trammell Crow died many years ago, this is his idiot son getting quoted here.

typical trust fund baby.

Tom Servo on March 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Green Lobby giving Romney a wink and a nod?

Pro-Abortion lobby giving Romney a wink and a nod?

Amnesty for Illegals lobby giving Romney a wink and a nod?

Wall Street fat cats who want govt. bailouts giving Romney a wink and a nod?

Government Run Healthcare advocates giving Romney a wink and a nod?

You see how easy this is with Romney. It is called “a lack of trust.”

fight like a girl on March 6, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Romney cannot be trusted.

Pork-Chop on March 6, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I’d call it a very good sign that the Greens think Obama is in enough trouble that they are trying to curry favor with someone they think will beat him.

Mord on March 6, 2012 at 4:13 PM

This is Dan McLaughlin from yesterday. I’ve separated them for easier reading. My emphasis

Mitt Romney, The Unconvincing Convert

As I discussed in 2007, Romney’s flip-flops are uniquely damaging to him because

(1) there are so many of them,

(2) they came relatively recently in his public career, and in most cases he has spent little or no time in office developing a record of fidelity to the new positions,

(3) he didn’t really offer plausible explanations for them compared to his oft-impassioned explanations for holding the earlier positions and

(4) there really isn’t one central core to Romney as a political leader that is free of flip-flops, no one thing we could be sure he’d never compromise on. Thus my characterization of Romney’s record as a sheet of thin ice as far as the eye can see.

INC on March 6, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Some serious Green Warriors appear to be betting heavily on the idea that Romney’s conversion on climate change may be temporary and, once in office, he might come back around to seeing things their way.

It could be Mr. Romney needs a support group, a Global Warming Anonymous if you will.

This is all the more reason to make sure we get conservative Congressmen and Senators in place to make sure Mr. Romney stays on the straight and narrow.

We need a majority in each house of “sponsors” to help him from falling off the wagon.

MessesWithTexas on March 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

It is a good bet for the greens. After all, it’s a good bet to take that Romney will flip flop on something. It’s like betting on a serial philanderer. You KNOW he’s going to cheat on his wife again, it’s just a matter of time, really. Besides, there’s no reason to expect that Romney won’t be a green pusher… he has been in the past. Just like he’s been pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-big government, anti-constitution, etc., etc.
Warner Todd Huston on March 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Oh please. You are clearly implying he will flip back on every issue he moved to the right on. This is absurd, but carry on with your delusions if it makes you happy. Who knows! Maybe Mitt’s a Communist of the sort who sets their kids up with a lemonade stand and let’s them give it away for free.

Buy Danish on March 6, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Didn’t we just give Rick Santorum a pass on this very sort of thing? Didn’t we just agree that the candidate shouldn’t be held responsible for the opinions of his supporters? Because if we’re now going to hold Romney responsible for the opinions of the green lobby, there is the little matter of aspirin-between-the-knees that I would like to address once again.

rogaineguy on March 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM

…And this story breaks just before Super Tuesday? Please…

Oracleforhire on March 6, 2012 at 4:35 PM

The implication, of course, being that it’s inherently bad to support the environment in any way. Typical rightwing kneejerk response.

Syzygy on March 6, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I have an idea…Let’s get a debate organized on TV and get Mitt to present his real views on weather…er….global warming. /s

elintex on March 6, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Green energy doesn’t work. It never worked. And it never will work as a form of mass energy production.
It has one application. The homestead or a small compound of several homes. Thats it. Site specific production. Period.
Its time enviro-fetishists accepted this fact.

Mimzey on March 6, 2012 at 7:00 PM

The implication, of course, being that it’s inherently bad to support the environment in any way. Typical rightwing kneejerk response.

Syzygy on March 6, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Thats just the brainwashing talking.

Just out of curiosity, what parts of “the environment” needs “support”?
Provide some real life examples.
Thanks.

Mimzey on March 6, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Now Politico has done some digging into political contributions received by the Romney Campaign and the results are raising a few eyebrows.
I wonder when they will start vetting our actual sitting President.

Go RBNY on March 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

…after JugEars is out of office. (Then, they’ll have books to sell, on the Liar-in-Chief.)

KOOLAID2 on March 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM

I think the Gingrich or the Santorum campaign planted this article pretending to wonder about this…

Personally, I hope some private company, without government interference, becomes very wealthy discovering the next green thing that really works. Really wealthy.

Fleuries on March 7, 2012 at 11:04 AM

“BOUGHT AND PAID FOR” That’s RINO Romney (aka Obastard-Lite). You know, I used to believe that ALL of the really STUPID people were on the Left!! I am WRONG! There are a lot of really STUPID people on the right, too!! Most of them are trying to ram Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) down our throats!?! You know, maybe that’s why they call it the STUPID Party!?! Can’t and won’t trust Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) EVER!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 8, 2012 at 7:30 PM