Pictured: The controversial "sunglasses on earth" method of dealing with global warming.
“I think we’re seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change,” said Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry at a meeting with business leaders in New Hampshire yesterday. The Texas governor, whose home state releases the most carbon dioxide in the country, went on describe global warming as an unproved theory that didn’t warrant huge financial expenditures, and in doing so affirmed his belief in an idea that has become an integral part of the GOP’s crusade against the Environmental Protection Agency. Many Republicans “think that the over-regulation from the EPA is at the heart of our stalled economy,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who helped to craft the controversial appropriations bill that will fund the EPA if passed in the coming weeks. As subcommittee chairman, Simpson has overseen the addition of 38 contentious riders to the bill that have included an end to the moratorium on uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, a delay in the agency’s ability to regulate green house gas emissions, and the unlimited discharge of pesticide particles into waterways. Democrats are up in arms about the additional provisions, and the White House has already threatened to veto bill, but many Republicans are preparing for battle against the mammoth environmental organization. With governmental spending at the top of many candidates’ agendas, the EPA’s funding and in particular its business-unfriendly green house gas emission initiatives are likely to come under fire. But do the agency’s regulations actually prevent job growth and undermine businesses? Will the EPA’s budget be slashed and what will that mean for the nation’s water and air quality?
Dan Turner, editorial writer, Los Angeles Times, he wrote the editorial "GOP vs. Mother Nature" [August 5, 2011]