Environmental Protection Agency is emerging as a favourite target of the Republican presidential candidates, who portray it as the very symbol of a heavy-handed regulatory agenda imposed by the Obama administration that they say is strangling the economy.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota wants to padlock the EPA?s doors, as does former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Governor Rick Perry of Texas wants to impose an immediate moratorium on environmental regulation. Representative Ron Paul of Texas wants environmental disputes settled by the states or the courts. Herman Cain, a businessman, wants to put many environmental regulations in the hands of an independent commission that includes oil and gas executives. Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor, thinks most new environmental regulations should be shelved until the economy improves.
Only Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has a kind word for the EPA, and that is qualified by his opposition to proposed regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming.
Opposition to regulation and scepticism about climate change have become tenets of Republican orthodoxy, but they are embraced with extraordinary intensity this year because of the faltering economy, high fuel prices, the Tea Party passion for smaller government and an activist Republican base that insists on strict adherence to the party?s central agenda.
But while attacks on the EPA, climate-change science and environmental regulation more broadly are surefire applause lines with many Republican primary audiences, these views may prove a liability in the general election, pollsters and analysts say. The American people, by substantial majorities, are concerned about air and water pollution, and largely trust the EPA, national surveys say.
?Not only are these positions irresponsible, they?re politically problematic,? said David Jenkins of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group that believes that conservation should be a core value of the party.