Romney’s Climate Change Straight Talk

June 6th, 2011 at 9:58 am David Frum | 34 Comments |

| Print

When Tim Pawlenty called for a (gradual) end to ethanol subsidies, he won accolades as a “truth teller.” Surely he deserved them, even if (as FF noted at the time) his stance was not quite as brave as it seemed.

It’s courageous, principled, and right for Tim Pawlenty to travel to Iowa to denounce ethanol and other farm subsidies. But I’m also left wondering: is this also a very good way to manage expectations if he comes second or third or worse in Iowa, where Pawlenty is currently polling in single digits?

But why no such accolades for Mitt Romney for telling a much more dangerous truth in a Republican primary?

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.

Pawlenty’s comments may put him on the wrong side of some Iowa farmers. The rest of the organized GOP will applaud. Romney’s comments on global warming defy the orthodoxy of Fox and talk in a way we have seen from few other Republicans in the past two years. Ditto his defense of the merit of extending health coverage to more Americans.

The global warming comment demonstrates a trait I’ve noted in Romney before:

The reason he has a reputation as a panderer is precisely that he’s not very good at pandering.

When Tim Pawlenty repeats nonsense about “fiat money,” he does so without a blink of mental reservation. His listeners are induced to imagine that he really believes what he says – even if as president he would almost certainly jettison that belief for one more in accord with modern economics.

When Mitt Romney panders, however, he leaves behind doubts whether he really means what he says. He’s not in trouble on abortion because he changed his mind to appeal to conservative voters. He’s in trouble because they suspect that he did not truly change.

On health and now climate, Romney is signaling: in important ways, he has not.

Recent Posts by David Frum



34 Comments so far ↓

  • Rabiner

    So just stating a fact is ‘straight talk’? sigh..

  • DFL

    The world seems to have gotten warmer since 1850 when the Industrial Revolution kicked into high gear in Europe and parts of America. Very few Americans wish to outlaw the Industrial Revolution. Even fewer consider Global Warming as a more important issue than the economy.

    • sweatyb

      addressing concerns about global climate change does not preclude a growing economy. In fact, addressing climate change through conservation and investments in research would likely mean more good paying jobs and an improved trade balance.

      Of course, if you’re Exxon, maybe you don’t see it that way. But last time I looked Big Oil was doing just fine even though unemployment remains quite high.

  • LFC

    Global temperatures are increasing and human activity is the major factor. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. This very well supported theory is accepted by 95% or more of climate scientists, depending upon the survey. (FYI, if you say it’s “just a theory” then you have no idea what a scientific theory is so must go back to high school before entering a conversation about anything scientific.) Every decade the evidence has piled up further and the models have been improved. And although there are changes, things have continually pointed in the same direction.

    How pathetic is it that admitting something so well supported by the scientific evidence is news? With the know nothings taking over the GOP, we might end up calling this period in time the “Age of De-lightenment.”

  • balconesfault

    Romney’s comments on global warming defy the orthodoxy of Fox and talk in a way we have seen from few other Republicans in the past two years.

    And make no mistake – this IS against the orthodoxy of Fox. From the recent New York Magazine article on Roger Ailes:

    Meanwhile, Hume’s replacement, Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times correspondent, angered Fox’s political reporters, who saw him pushing coverage further to the right than they were comfortable with. … Sammon caused problems internally when the Fox watchdog website Media Matters obtained a series of controversial e-mails about Fox’s coverage of climate change and health care. In one December 2009 e-mail, Sammon said Fox should question the science of climate change. “We should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question,” he wrote.

    Just fair and balanced … I predict that soon enough Mitt and Christie will be dragged back into supporting the orthodoxy.

  • Carney

    Not only has Romney, to his great credit, defended ethanol subsidies (after all even Adam Smith supported sailcloth subsidies to prevent his nation from being dependent on foreign or hostile powers for his day’s strategically vital source of transportation motive power), I would also note this tantalizing promise from the energy section of his campaign website:

    http://www.mittromney.com/issues/job-creation

    “[...] address market failures that prevent the adoption of new technologies.”

    With this key phrase “market failure”, Romney is articulating a core conservative (as opposed to libertarian) tenet: that laissez-faire does not always have results congruent with our values, our national security, or our economic well-being.

    That’s why conservatives favor checks and limits on “adult” content, such as restrictions on it during prime time broadcast TV and near schools. That’s why conservatives favor restrictions on transfer of sensitive technology to China.

    And that’s why we should not only subsidize ethanol as necessary, but go further and mandate that all new gasoline cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled – able to run equally easily on any alcohol fuel (including not just ethanol but also methanol and all the others) as on gasoline. It would only cost automakers $130 per new car at the factory to include this, so we should make it a required standard feature like seat belts.

    There is a market failure preventing ethanol and methanol from becoming mainstream fuels. Few gas stations sell alcohol fuel because so few cars can use it. So few cars can use it because automakers tend not to include alcohol compatibility. Car buyers tend not to demand it as a feature because they 1) don’t know alcohol fuel exists or what its benefits are; 2) don’t see it for sale at their filling stations so having compatibility makes no difference anyway. This automaker-gas station-consumer “you go first” standoff is being indirectly and ineffectively addressed via various half-measures such as subsidies, tax breaks, CAFE standard breaks, and so on. Meanwhile decades have gone by. Time to cut the Gordian knot – mandate flex fuel as a standard feature in all cars from now on.

    While this step would not solve the global warming problem, it would make it no worse, solve even more urgent problems in the meantime (our oil dependence harming our economy and national security), greatly mitigate the conventional pollution problem (since, for example, alcohol fuel burns with no smog-causing soot) and if our alcohol fuel comes from biomass would buy us more time even on global warming as well.

    See EnergyVictory dot net
    SetAmericaFree dot org
    and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLRuGUPkyh4

    • medinnus

      And it might spur people to replace their cars with something American-made and flexy… which can’t but help our economy as well.

      • balconesfault

        With this key phrase “market failure”, Romney is articulating a core conservative (as opposed to libertarian) tenet: that laissez-faire does not always have results congruent with our values, our national security, or our economic well-being.

        That’s why conservatives favor checks and limits on “adult” content, such as restrictions on it during prime time broadcast TV and near schools. That’s why conservatives favor restrictions on transfer of sensitive technology to China.

        That’s conservatism I can support.

        But the laissez-faire/libertarian arguments being made are by and large intended to gut government’s ability to look out for the long-term interests of the middle class and working classes in America – and that’s conservatism I can’t support.

  • Frumplestiltskin

    David doesn’t seem to grasp the problem with Romney, it is his constant flip flopping for what can be no other reason than pandering.
    There is a whole website devoted to his nonsense:
    http://mittromneyflipflops.com/

    ‘I supported the assault weapon ban.’ [1]
    ‘I don’t support any gun control legislation.’ [2]
    ‘I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.’ [1]
    ‘There’s no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.’ [2]
    ‘It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.’ [1]
    ‘I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.’ [2]
    ‘I’m a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering.’ [1]
    ‘I changed my position.’ [2]

    Come on David, these are countless. So Mitt says this today, what will he say tomorrow?

  • Graychin

    I think that Romney can survive being a truth-teller about climate change. That isn’t exactly “straight talk.”

    What will save him is that he proposes to do nothing about it. That makes his heresy seem harmless to climate change deniers.

    But it raises the question – if he believes that climate change is real, and being caused by human activity, shouldn’t he WANT to do something about it? What does it say about him that he’s OK with letting things slide as they are?

    • balconesfault

      Ah – but Romney’s still going to be occupying the debate podium soon with a bunch of climate change denialists … and competing for votes in a party where 53% (per a recent Pew poll) believe climate change to be a “hoax”, and where 70% of Tea Partiers (who undoubtably will make a disproportionate contribution in caucuses) embrace the “hoax” position.

      I think Christie was smarter – being sane is his only chance of re-election in New Jersey, and he can hope that the 2016 GOP primaries are not as dominated by crazies as the 2012 will be. For Romney this could be toxic.

    • Grace

      Graychin, I’ve been wondering but haven’t taken the time to research what, if any, action he proposes as a result of this belief. Admirable to go out on a limb and state the belief but if it is followed by a statement that there is nothing that can or should be done, or that we couldn’t ‘afford’ to do anything, what does it really matter? It would simply be trying to have it both ways: speaking sanely for those who are not anti-science, with a wink-and-a-nod to the Teahadist set. Do you have a source for your comment that he proposes to do nothing about it?

      • Graychin

        Grace – I can’t find a source that says “Romney doesn’t want to do anything about climate change.” At the same time, I can’t find anything that Romney proposes to do about climate change.

        Can you?

  • sinz54

    Carney:

    I’m sorry, but ethanol and methanol will also produce CO2 when burned. So does natural gas. Any carbon-based fuel does. Even the food you eat; you exhale CO2 too. So what you’re proposing might solve our dependence on an unstable and cartel-controlled oil market, it won’t solve the global warming problem.

    The price of moving away from all carbon-based fuels will be staggering–if it can be done at all. Greenpeace USA has admitted that airliner travel will have to end. I guess we’ll need to go back to riding Zeppelins with battery-operated propeller motors.

    And I’m still waiting for someone to show me a map of the United States and point to where the vast tracts of solar panels are going to go. How many thousands of square miles of desert ecosystem will need to get paved over for solar panel farms? And will the same environmentalists who demand a solution to global warming recoil at the thought of solar panels on thousands of square miles of currently undeveloped land?

    Therefore, while the global warming activists (why does a scientific theory need “activists”?) refuse to consider it, I believe that adaptation to global warming will be necessary rather than trying to just stop global warming. Dikes and levees can protect coastal areas from rising sea levels. Larger low-lying areas (islands, Bangladesh, etc.) will need to be evacuated and the people relocated.

    The Israelis are proud of the fact that they turned desert into arable land with irrigation, creating farmland out of nowhere. We can do the same in our own West.

    • balconesfault

      I’m sorry, but ethanol and methanol will also produce CO2 when burned. … Even the food you eat; you exhale CO2 too.

      Sinz, who I think is an engineer of some sort … still seems unable to distinguish from CO2 produced from burning extracted subsurface carbon deposits (which were sequestered from the atmosphere millions of years ago), and CO2 produced from combustion or metabolism of carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere by plant mass in the last year or so.

      As a fellow engineer, this makes me very sad.

  • Watusie

    Wouldn’t it be great if Romney getting basics facts right were the rule, not the the note-worthy exception?

  • sinz54

    Frum: But why no such accolades for Mitt Romney for telling a much more dangerous truth in a Republican primary?

    Here’s why:

    Pawlenty had the guts to oppose ethanol subsidies while he was speaking in Iowa, a state that makes money off ethanol subsidies.

    In 2008, while running for President, Rudy Giuliani had the guts to take a moderately pro-choice position in front of an audience of pro-life Christian evangelicals.

    Whereas Romney stated he believed global warming is a reality while he was speaking to an audience in New Hampshire, where the Republicans are more moderate and likely agree with him about the reality of global warming. That’s not as courageous. It’s more like reassuring your audience that you agree with them.

    Now let’s see if Romney will say the same things about global warming to audiences in Texas. If he does, he will be publicly disagreeing with the GOP governor there.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6870313.html

  • armstp

    Romney had no choice but to make these global warming comments, as he had said this in his book some years ago, before it was fashionable on the right to bash global warming.

  • nhthinker

    Romney’s position on Global Warming seems EXACTLY the same as what it was in 2008.

    Warming over the past hundred years is undeniable.
    Some of it is human caused.
    Don’t know how much.
    Decisions that reduce human caused warming are good, BUT they cannot take priority over the American economy: we will not allow jobs to be shipped to other countries because they do not treat human impact on warming as seriously as Americans decide to.

    In other words, American jobs and economy will take priority over the need to reduce American impact on warming.

    2008…
    http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=08-P13-00002&segmentID=3

    ROMNEY: I believe the planet’s getting warmer and I believe that human activity is contributing to the planet getting warmer. I’m not a scientist so I don’t know how much is human and how much is due to other cyclical factors we don’t understand. I just don’t know.

    But I do know this; we can reduce the impact of human activity by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases. And the best way I know to do that is to put us on a track to becoming energy independent of foreign oil. Because getting us to do that would mean less use of oil and more use of liquefied coal, where you sequester the CO2, nuclear, solar, wind power, biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and more efficient vehicles and homes and business. You do those things: our greenhouse gas emissions come down a lot.

    • sweatyb

      American jobs and economy will take priority over the need to reduce American impact on warming

      As others have said, Romney’s radical embrace of accepted science is softened by his position that he’s not going to do anything about it. (Because as we all know by now, the Republican party is all about Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!)

      The economy is threatened far more by climate change than it is by climate change regulation (see recent crop failures in Russia & massive droughts China). Catastrophes tend to have a detrimental impact on GDP.

      But even if you don’t accept that climate change is a real thing, investments in conservation and non-emitting technologies could spur a new space-race style surge as well as address our the trade imbalance and limit our dependence on unreliable fuel sources.

      • balconesfault

        Catastrophes tend to have a detrimental impact on GDP.

        Ahh – but catastrophes do create potential profiteering opportunities for the wealthy and well-positioned.

      • John Q

        As others have said, Romney’s radical embrace of accepted science is softened by his position that he’s not going to do anything about it. (Because as we all know by now, the Republican party is all about Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!)

        Of course, a big switch to alternative energy sources would open up millions of new jobs. But that’s another inconvenient truth that the GOP continues to hide.

  • LFC

    sinz54 said… “And I’m still waiting for someone to show me a map of the United States and point to where the vast tracts of solar panels are going to go.”

    I don’t think that this is really the future for solar. The future is much more localized. If we could store electricity efficiently, then solar panels on individual homes and businesses would be the way to go. The ground is already covered by the building so no additional land loss.

    It would obviously become economically feasible in areas such was the southwest before the Pacific northwest, but localized solutions are nothing new. You don’t see much adobe or swamp coolers (evaporative air conditioning) in moist climates but they are common where it’s dry and sunny.

  • Stewardship

    My guess is that both Romney and Huntsman, given their backgrounds, see JOBS in converting our economy to cleaner and renewable energy sources. Both share CEO networks and know that the US energy sector continues to sit on tens of billions of investment capital–waiting for a comprehensive energy policy and leadership from the federal government. They both also have a world view that enables them to clearly see the national security implications of the status quo.

    In other words, both are interested in successful governance, rather than appealing to the 50 Tea Party activists who show up at these daily campaign stops.

  • Ethanol group invites Jon Huntsman to Iowa – Politico

    [...] (blog)Iowa Official Blasts Huntsman for Caucuses PassNewsMax.comThe Atlantic Wire -FrumForum -Fox Newsall 46 news [...]

  • PatrickQuint

    sinz54: “I’m sorry, but ethanol and methanol will also produce CO2 when burned. So does natural gas. Any carbon-based fuel does. Even the food you eat; you exhale CO2 too. So what you’re proposing might solve our dependence on an unstable and cartel-controlled oil market, it won’t solve the global warming problem.”

    Drilling for oil takes carbon that was sequestered and puts it into the system. Ethanol takes carbon already in the system and moves it around. The difference with ethanol is that it’s getting its carbon out of the atmosphere rather than out of geological deposits.

    Watusie, you show a whole bunch of politically charged characterizations and treat the politically charged responses as matters of truth as clear as the sum of 2 and 2.

    Telling the world that Bush policies were wrong and that things are going to be different is a whole lot like apologizing. That’s not quite fair, but it’s also not like saying that the noonday sun is purple.

    Saying that we’re inches away from ceasing to be a free market can’t be right no matter what how close the country is to Marxism. “Inches” aren’t a measurement of free-market-ness.

    The ACA represents a free-market takeover of health care as much as the Ryan plan represents a privatization of Medicare.

    Politically charged and frankly incorrect rhetoric isn’t a distinctively Republican characteristic, let alone unique to Romney. If you’re going to talk about politicians getting facts wrong, show me disparities in numbers or statements claiming that Paul Revere rode out to warn the British about how awesome the American militia were.

  • Kane

    In the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, George W. Bush made comments about global warming that are similar to what Mitt Romney is now offering. Attempting to out-green Al Gore, Bush proposed to slow the pace of global warming by limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that electrical utilities release into the atmosphere. As we know, Bush didn’t keep that campaign promise.

    In the 2008 campaign, John McCain spoke about the issue of climate change throughout his campaign, telling voters that he was “convinced­, without a doubt” in his mind that climate change is real. He argued for an increase in green technology and the importance of a cap and trade system. Five months after losing the election, McCain was ripping President Obama for his climate change proposal because it included a cap and trade system, which McCain described as a “giant government slush fund.”

    Why no such accolades for Mitt Romney? Because like his Republican mates before him, Romney has no intention whatsoever of addressing climate change. This rhetoric is simply designed to persuade environmentally conscious swing voters that he is greener than Barack Obama.

    • nhthinker

      “This rhetoric is simply designed to persuade environmentally conscious swing voters that he is greener than Barack Obama.”

      Clearly, Romney is not trying to be seen as greener than Obama.
      Romney is looking to boost US energy generation and reduce dependence on foreign energy even if it adds to the manageable risks to the environment.

      Obama closes the Gulf to new drilling and gives money to south American countries so America an increase its import of foreign energy in favor of eliminating (as oppose to managing) environmental risks even if it means a huge loss of American jobs.

      • balconesfault

        Obama closes the Gulf to new drilling and gives money to south American countries

        Is there any right wing lie NHThinker won’t repeat?

        http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

        [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company

        This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission “is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets,” issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil’s national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.

        The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated:

        “The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.”

        Do you even bother to verify these lies before you recite them?

        Do you care?

        • nhthinker

          I never said “[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company”.

          Obama’s appointee led in the final decision AND it was only the Democrats that voted for it- but you won’t hear that from the head of Ex-Im that is a political appointee of Obama:

          http://www.exim.gov/article.cfm/F7CD065C-A808-E5AD-26D470202967DC56/
          EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES
          SUMMARY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
          FEBRUARY 4, 2010

          ITEM NO 2
          Country BRAZIL AP084193XX
          Request for FINAL COMMITMENT

          Applicant PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S/A, RIO DE JANEIRO, RJ 20035-900 BRAZIL
          Borrower PETROBRAS NETHERLANDS B V, AMSTERDAM, NOORD-HOLLAND 1012 KK NETHERLANDS
          Guarantor PETROBRAS PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A., RIO DE JANEIRO 20031-912 BRAZIL
          Buyer PETROBRAS PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A., RIO DE JANEIRO 20031-912 BRAZIL
          End-user PETROBRAS PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A., RIO DE JANEIRO 20031-912 BRAZIL
          Exporter VARIOUS – UNITED STATES SUPPLIERS, UNKNOWN DC
          Supplier VARIOUS – UNITED STATES SUPPLIERS, UNKNOWN DC
          Gteed Lender JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NEW YORK NY
          Lessor NONE
          Lessee PETROBRAS NETHERLANDS B V, AMSTERDAM, NOORD-HOLLAND 1012 KK NETHERLANDS

          Project Name NONE
          Project Description OIL & GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT
          Product Description VARIOUS U.S. GOODS & SUPPLIES
          Financed Amount $ 308,211,360
          Repayment Term 5 YEARS

          [b] Board Decision APPROVED. Chairman Hochberg and Director Farrell voted in favor of the
          transaction, Director Kian voted against. [/b]

          ——-
          Wiki:
          Diane Farrell (born August 10, 1955) is an American politician who was the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Connecticut’s 4th congressional district in 2004 and 2006.

          ——-
          http://www.allgov.com/Appointments_and_Resignations/ViewNews/Export__Import__Bank__of__the__United__States__Who__is__Fred__Hochberg__90127

          Hochberg had been active in Democratic politics, and in 2004, he was a delegate from New York to the Democratic National Convention. He also raised $100,000 for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential run. During Hillary Clinton’s run for president in 2008, Hochberg was one of her top “bundlers” (fundraisers who gather contributions from many sources), reportedly raising $100,000 for her campaign. He later gathered together a similar amount for Obama after he won the Democratic nomination.

          After the November 2008 election, Hochberg was selected to serve on Obama’s transition team, tasked with overseeing transition at the Small Business Administration as co-Lead of the SBA Review Team.

          ——

          But the Obama administration wants it both ways- pointing to the old preliminary and not owning the final commitment.

          The “fact” organizations could have looked for the “FINAL” commitments, but they were NOT interested in showing that the DEMOCRATS own this and have since Feb 4, 2010. The snopes article says it was updated Feb 10th, 2010. BUT IT MAKES NO REFERENCE TO THE DEMOCRATS EXCLUSIVELY OWNING THE FINAL COMMITMENT! (just an oversight, right?)

          Am I surprised that balconesfault’s is pointing to old stale information hawked by an Obama appointee, instead of relevant facts that are now over a year old?

          Not at all.

          Will I be pleasantly surprised if balconefault admits my information on Petrobras is actual correct and more relevant to the current conversation and that I never lied on the subject?

          Sure would be.

        • balconesfault

          I never said “[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company”.

          You’re right.

          You in fact accused Obama of “giving” the money to Brazil for exploration.

          That’s an even bigger lie.

          I don’t suppose you even paid attention to this little detail in the excerpt you clipped:

          Project Description OIL & GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT
          Product Description VARIOUS U.S. GOODS & SUPPLIES

          Yes … the money was lent by Ex-Im with the specification that the Brazilian oil companies would be using the money to buy oil exploration equipment from the US with the money.

          So … (a) the money was LENT, not given
          (b) the money was required to be spent on goods and supplies manufactured in the US

          Thanks for playing.

  • balconesfault

    Patrick as much as the Ryan plan represents a privatization of Medicare.

    How does the Ryan Plan NOT represent a privatization of Medicare?

    You’re taking a program that is essentially Government paying providers to perform a service.

    You’re transforming it into Government giving people money that must be directed at buying insurance coverage from private providers.

    I ask again – how is that NOT privatization?

    Kane: In the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, George W. Bush made comments about global warming that are similar to what Mitt Romney is now offering.

    Nope – Bush’s comments were much stronger. He flat out pledged to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. It was either an act of abject ignorance of his intentions, or a flat-out lie. But he reversed that pledge within a month of being elected.

  • nhthinker

    “Yes … the money was lent by Ex-Im with the specification that the Brazilian oil companies would be using the money to buy oil exploration equipment from the US with the money.

    So … (a) the money was LENT, not given
    (b) the money was required to be spent on goods and supplies manufactured in the US

    Thanks for playing.”

    The money was given in the form of loans. The loans have a monetary value to them. I did not specific the monetary value that Obama through his appointee and the Democrat appointee that gave FINAL COMMITMENT to(the Republican director voting against). You have to concede that it has monetary value.

    My citations here support my original statement:
    “Obama closes the Gulf to new drilling and gives money to south American countries so America an increase its import of foreign energy in favor of eliminating (as oppose to managing) environmental risks even if it means a huge loss of American jobs.”

    None of your citations are contrary to my statement.

    Or are you going to try to contend that the miniscule number of US jobs to support Petrobras exceeds the number of US jobs associated with the Republican POV on use of the Gulf and the rest of American potential oil and gas fields?

    Thanks for playing and losing.