Sigh! … if only he had won that election …oh wait, he actually did if they had counted all the statewide ballots (yes, my political leanings are leaking out all over this posting).
So anyway, in reply to the new regulations, not only the Democrats, but also the Republicans have applauded this bold move and fully supported it … oh wait, no that is not what happened (but you could perhaps guess that).
Because they are not too bothered about small little things such as facts and evidence, several well-known rather prominent Republicans have simply come out with some rather bold lies …
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) claims that these new regulations are …
“a green agenda that has been dreamed up by the environmentalist community for decades” because the EPA has admitted that greenhouse gases “do not cause direct adverse health effects.”
Now that claim is not only outrageous, it is also a complete fabrication.
We also have …
A full-page ad running in Politico today details the “radical” organization that is the EPA, implying an “anarchist,” “militia,” “terrorist” organization whose regulations “threaten to shut down 25 percent of the electric grid.”
The ad, which manages to be both offensive and wildly untrue, comes from “EPAFacts.com,” a site run by right-wing PR flack Rick Berman.
Does it get any weirder? Yes indeed it does …
“Today’s announcement is a dagger in the heart of the American middle class,” said Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a press release this morning. “This rule is all pain, no gain,” Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) said in a statement. “It’s a sucker punch for families everywhere,” wrote Boehner.
Of course, Obama’s new climate regulations won’t stab you in the heart or punch you without warning. Politicians and the public have known these regulations were coming since 2009, when the EPA designated carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. This happened two years after the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority and responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases if they were a threat to human health and welfare.
What’s more, the EPA estimates the regulations will actually prevent deaths — up to 6,600 premature deaths avoided from pollution reduction, and 150,000 avoided asthma attacks in children.
Oh but it will cost billions ..
After the rules were released Monday morning, many — including former Mitt Romney and George W. Bush adviser Edward W. Gillespie — began tweeting out a report released last week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which projected that the regulations would cost American industry $28.1 billion annually, that as many as 224,000 jobs would be lost between now and 2030, that the economy would average $50.2 billion lower a year.
Sound interesting and appears to be a good read, oh but wait, it deserves a Hugo award are this years best bit of science fiction because once again it is not actually true at all …
That report, however, was released before the regulations were actually unveiled, and were based off a much higher emissions reduction standard. The Chamber’s report was based off the assumption that the new regulations would require states to cut carbon emissions 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, while the actual regulations only require a 30 percent cut from those levels.
Even if the regulations were as aggressive as the Chamber’s report estimated they would be, though, it still wouldn’t be that much of a burden on the American people.
So there you have it then, lots of rather clear guidance on who not to vote for.
If you in fact do enjoy being lied to, manipulated, and played like a fool, if you don’t gave a damn about future generations and are happy for them to live with the consequences of a radically changing climate (yes, it really is happening) …. then I have just the party for you, one that has completely decoupled itself from evidence-based policy … or for that matter, reality.
On the other hand, when it is time to cast your vote, there are better choices … (but sadly, not much better).