Regulating “pro-lifers” and the Brand

The Environmental Evangelical Network (EEN) a green evangelical “pro-life” group that supports EPA rules limiting harmful mercury is catching the wrath of fellow “pro-lifers”. The EEN favors specific restrictions on emissions from power plants because they will protect the health of the unborn. The EEN critics maintain that to portray safeguards against environmental hazards as “pro-life” is to “obscure the meaning of the term.”

While the EEN’ers still deny that human activity is driving global warming the group has urged support for regulatory restrictions by sponsoring TV, radio ads and billboards. A spokesman spells out their view this way: “We believe protecting the unborn from mercury poisoning is a consistent pro-life position,” Mercury exposure can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness in infants. Low doses may result in developmental delays affecting walking, talking, attention span and learning disabilities.

However the EEN’s broader views and actions spell trouble for them from 30 other religious “pro-lifers” and conservative anti-EPA legislators including, The Family Research Council and Sen. James Inhofe. It appears these critics see a threat to the “pro-life” brand name. Says Inhofe about the EEN’s position: “To claim that EPA’s devastating, job-killing regime is somehow ‘pro-life’ is absurd.”

This is trouble junction in terms of controling of the issue when a brand boundary gets blurred and is no longer focused as they wish it to be. And worse still for Sen. Inhofe is the intersecting issue with his longtime pet villain, the “job-killing” EPA. Imagine the EPA protecting life?

Forcast:Cloudy with a Chance of Global Warming

By only a six vote margin, 53-47 the Senate stopped a Republican attempt to block the EPA from regulating carbon emissions that it has deemed a threat to health and environment. Among those in favor of the effort were six Democrats. Climate change denier Republican Tom Coburn raising the fear of job loss said of allowing the EPA regulate that “Even if it is the right thing to do, now is not the time to do it.”

The New York Times points out:
But it [the close vote] provided a showcase for a Senate fight over global warming as well as an indicator of where lawmakers could be expected to come down on legislation aimed at carbon emissions. The near-even division among lawmakers showed that a 60-vote supermajority on climate change legislation remains elusive.

We all know Sen. Coburn (R,OK) dances to a different drummer but the razor close margins in the Senate don’t appear to reflect the what the country thinks. National polling shows support for legislative climate remedies, yet the Senate stumbles forth with Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham climate bill.

In the June 2010 survey, 86 percent of respondents said they wanted the federal government to limit the amount of air pollution that businesses emit, and 76 percent favored government limitations on greenhouse gas emissions generated by businesses. Only 14 percent said that the United States should not take action to combat global warming unless other major industrial countries like China and India do so as well.

Therecent survey by Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University shows a slight decline (even after the ‘climate-gate’ foolishness) in those who think global warming is happening 84 percent in 2007 to 74 percent today. Unfortunately little interest is shown in being motivated to reduce personal consumption through taxes.
Among other survey results:

• 78 percent opposed taxes on electricity to reduce consumption, and 72 percent opposed taxes on gasoline;
• 84 percent favored the federal government offering tax breaks to encourage utilities to make more electricity from water, wind and solar power;
• Four out of 5 respondents favored government requiring or offering tax breaks to encourage the production of cars that use less gas (81 percent), appliances that use less electricity (80 percent) and homes and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool (80 percent);
• Only 18 percent said that policies to reduce global warming would increase unemployment.