I love the hysterical reportage these people have put together. We can’t elect Romney/Ryan, because so many people will DIE! And, sure, the EPA’s estimates aren’t going to be biased at all, are they? And, of course, the deaths will result in more money in their election coffers – I’m not sure how that could happen, since they wouldn’t be able to influence any of these regulations until after the election.
In the 2008 presidential race, both major parties’ candidates—then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—had similar proposals to reduce industrial carbon pollution to slow climate change. Although the two candidates disagreed about many issues, public health protection from air pollution wasn’t one of them.
What a difference four years makes. Since taking office, President Obama has proposed and adopted significant pollution reductions protective enough to safeguard public health as required by the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—this year’s Republican presidential candidate—promises to remove these protections, which would lead to 21,600 unnecessary premature deaths, 199,000 asthma attacks, and 12,540 hospitalizations every year, based on Environmental Protection Agency projections. In fact, Gov. Romney even questions whether humans are predominantly responsible for climate change.
Gov. Romney opposes these pollution-reduction measures that would shield children, seniors, and other vulnerable people from mercury, carcinogens, and carbon pollution.And his vice-presidential running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), voted more than a dozen times over the past 18 months to block these and other public health safeguards.
I love the way they couch the climate change hoax: “Romney even questions whether humans are predominantly responsible…” you can’t question the religion of the Gaia worshipers, regardless of how shaky their claims are.
Read the rest, if you have the stomach (and I love their name): The Center for American Progress Action Fund