The other day, my wife, an animal activist and environmentalist, got an e-mail from the National Wildlife Federation, with the subject line, "Don't Let Ohio's Sen. Brown Turn Against Wildlife."
The e-mail turned out to be from Sue Brown, executive director of the NWF Action Fund. It featured a large color photograph of a polar bear.
"I just got word that Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown is considering support of a law that would undermine the Clean Air Act and crucial progress on protecting the future of wildlife from global warming pollution," explained the "Dear Ann" letter from "Sue," using the faux intimacy beloved of direct marketers, politicians and con men.
The letter doesn't mention Ohio's other senator, Republican Rob Portman, who apparently hates wildlife and is apparently beyond the reach of appeals from bear lovers.
Brown is considering how to vote on whether to delay the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.
Here's a few nuances the letter misses:
1. The EPA hasn't regulated carbon dioxide before, but began doing so under the Obama administration. The end-justifies-the-means philosophy here is that if the president can't get a global warming bill through Congress, it's OK for the EPA to take on new duties, anyway.
2. According to Project Vote Smart, Sen. Brown received a 91 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2009, and a 71 percent rating that year from Environment America.
3. Brown represents a state where manufacturing is still important, and largely powered by coal. He faces a re-election campaign next year. Putting the power to regulate carbon dioxide into the hands of EPA would give unelected bureaucrats the power to give some areas of the country an economic advantage over others.
It's not an easy vote for Brown, who is "green" on many issues but obviously doesn't want to throw people out of work in his home state.
Does the National Wildlife Federation want to be a respected organization, or just another special interest group?
Comments
Busy McMuffin day?
Durwood's position depends on wind direction at our new county airport.
Or what Connie tells him to think
goofus, Were you at the Florida chapter of the Log cabin Repubs with jim hoft?
Tom, you raise good points, BUT you said, "Putting the power to regulate carbon dioxide into the hands of EPA would give unelected bureaucrats the power to give some areas of the country an economic advantage over others."
Huh? If indeed they have that power, how is it better that politicians have it? Consider the possibilty that a dedicated professional (or, "unelected bureaucrat" as you so disrespectfully say) is actually competent and will to make decision based on what's right rather that who donated to his last campaign.
If that is the case Factitious, then why do we need a Congress, or a President for that matter?
The idea is that rules and regulations are to be written by people being held directly accountable by the voters they represent.
To have any issue decided by a faceless nameless person in a basement office in DC without responsiblity to the citizens is a tad scary.
While this particular issue may be over CO2 and the environment, if this issue is allowed to imposed, then no issue is off the table
Moderators have removed this comment because it contained obscenity. Discussion Guidelines
Does the EPA have the right to regulate CO2? Yes it does:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/science/earth/31epa.html?_r=3&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23
Regulating CO2 emissions for coal fired electric generating plants and oil refineries will result in increased costs for consumers - QED.
A direct connection can be made to the loss of U.S. manufacturing and the creation of the EPA in 1970.
The "warmers" won't stop until they've destroyed even more industry in the U.S.
Just another back door assault on the people of this country just because there is no way cap and trade will be passed in congress. The obama regime is pretty goood at sneaking things in
Protecting the Clean Air Act is critical to addressing climate change, public health and the economy. It seems like the point of NWF's email was to encourage Sen. Brown to be strong and not let Big Oil and other corporate polluters drive the agenda for the EPA.
Factitious,
My point -- and I probably could have worded it better -- is that carbon dioxide regulation is likely to impact Ohio industries and that Sen. Brown would likely want to preserve the ability to mitigate that impact.
Since humans inexplicably expel CO2 as a byproduct of the respiration process, for the good of the planet shouldn't warmers commit mass suicide?
They've got my OK.