by David Roberts, in a Grist cross-post

Political reporter John Broder had a long piece in The New York Times [Thursday] chronicling Obama’s decision to delay a tighter national smog standard. I have no desire to relitigate that fight, but I do want to pluck out one particular bit of Broder’s piece to illustrate a point.

In a recent piece kvetching about media coverage of Solyndra, I said: “Republican talking points are delivered as first-order news. Liberal talking points are wrapped in meta-news about liberals and their talking points.” Let’s look at an example — not the biggest deal in the world, but quite illustrative.

Here’s the 11th paragraph of Broder’s piece:

The standard for ozone was last set in 2008 by the Bush administration at a level of 75 parts per billion, above the range of 60 to 70 recommended by the E.P.A.’s scientific advisory panel at the time, but never enacted. Environmental and public health groups challenged the Bush standard in court, saying it would endanger human health and had been tainted by political interference. Smog levels have declined sharply over the last 40 years, but each incremental improvement comes at a significant cost to business and government.

Look closely at those last two sentences. They contain four assertions:

1. Bush’s ozone standard would harm public health.
2. Bush’s ozone standard was subject to political interference.
3. Smog levels have declined over the last 40 years.
4. Each smog reduction imposes “significant costs” on “business.”

Now let’s re-order them based on how well they are supported by evidence:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

One of America’s greatest journalists anticipated the entire Occupy Wall Street protests against the 1% back in 2010:

This is from the final broadcast of Bill Moyers Journal, which included an interview with Jim Hightower who said:

So, we need a lot more agitation. And that’s the only thing that succeeds from a progressive side in changing politics in America.

Certainly that’s the only thing that stopped the permitting this year of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline (see Stunning Triumph for 99%: Obama Sends Keystone XL Back to State for Review, McKibben Calls This “A Very Important Day”).

Mitt Romney has consistently been the candidate of the 1%:

“Mitt Romney’s Money Shot,” as The Atlantic puts it.  Photo: Bain Capital/The Boston Globe

Intrade prediction markets puts Romney’s chances of being the GOP Presidential nominee at 69.5% as the rest of the field implodes and unelectable Newt Gingrich (!) is the latest to surge.

Romney is moving to the right on core issues that matter to the Tea Party like climate change.  In October, Romney started flipping to denial (see Likely GOP Nominee Asserts, “We Don’t Know What’s Causing Climate Change”).

But now he’s started pushing the truly inane hard-core denier talking points, as the Boston Globe reports today:

Discussing climate change in response to an audience question, he mocked the notion of asking the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

“I exhale carbon dioxide,’’ Romney said. “I don’t want those guys following me around with a meter to see if I’m breathing too hard.’’

Seriously.  This from a guy who, just in June, said “I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.”

Why is Romney pandering to the most extreme part of the GOP when he just about has the race sewed up, and the rest of the general public believes in global warming and climate action?

Intrade has Obama at almost dead even to be reelected — 50.5%.  Who do you think will be the next President?

Related Post:

• McKibben: Will Global Warming Be an Election Issue After All?

A penny for your cyberthoughts.