“… we’re working on your next paint job.”
Of course, lead also went to work on kids’ brains. From the CDC:
In children, acute exposure to very high levels of lead may produce encephalopathy and other accompanying signs of
- ataxia
- coma
- convulsions
- death
- hyperirritability
- stupor
The BLLs associated with encephalopathy in children vary from study to study, but BLLs of 70-80 µg/dL or greater appear to indicate a serious risk (ATSDR 2005).
- Even without encephalopathy symptoms, these levels are associated with increased incidences of lasting neurological and behavioral damage (ATSDR 2005).
Children suffer neurological effects at much lower exposure levels.
And on and on. But you knew this.
Now, some of our friends here, including one esteemed editor, complained that this new TV spot — aimed at Sen. Brown’s vote to cripple the EPA’s enforcement ability — was heavy-handed.
Let’s just be absolutely clear: Children are very definitely affected by the environment. Lead (for instance) has taken a hellacious toll on kids, who, of course, eventually grow up to be adults, who function much worse in life because of lead exposure.
And of course, we’re leaving a terrible legacy of climate change to our kids.
You simply cannot discuss environmental issues at all without understanding who and what is at stake. If anything, the oxygen-mask ad underplays the terrible effects that would result from Scott Brown’s vote to cripple the EPA.
Wonk Room TPM
Really, you think Scott Brown cast his vote to increase health risks to children? That’s simply an outrageous fabrication. It’s like saying the Massachusetts DPU is killing polar bears by revising wholesale electricity rates.
The issue in the vote revolved around the scope of the EPA’s regulatory authority, as Congress sees it. Congress created the EPA, and Congress decides what it can and cannot do. Congress passes the laws that the EPA enforces. Congressional authority to regulate CO2 was sought, and withheld.
The merits of regulating CO2 aside, Brown rightly voted to limit EPA’s authority to laws promulgated by Congress. At this juncture, that’s all it was.
The League of Women Voters’s television ad is a howler, and I think because of its hyperbole damages the policy case to be made for carbon restrictions (if there are any, TBD by national discussion.)
No, actually that’s not correct. The Supreme Court (correctly) decided in Massachusetts v. EPA that EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Brown voted to change the statute in order to remove that authority.
It was a stupid and deeply wrong-headed vote, and hopefully Brown will suffer politically for it. I stand by my view of not liking the ad, though I agree that, by being completely over-the-top, it has succeeded in calling more attention to the issue than it otherwise seemed likely to receive – especially because they have also gone after a Democrat (Claire McCaskill).
not the DPU.
OTOH, the EPA does protect children though regulation. Brown’s vote notwithstanding.
Was Brown’s vote somehow related to lead poisoning? I thought it was about global warming and greenhouse gasses.
Absolutely shameful ad, btw — I’m disappointed in the League of Women Voters.
for me personally. But I’m probably not the audience, which, given the content, is more than likely women. Strategically, it makes sense to start driving a wedge between women and Scott Brown. My guess is his apparent moderation and good looks make him popular enough with women that the LWV thinks its worth trying to drive that wedge between them.
It cracks me up though when conservatives say they are offended by the histrionics and alarmism of climate change politics. When is the Republican Party not alarmist and histrionic?
Becasue women are too silly to spot a histrionic exaggeration, and will vote against that bad man becuase he hates kids?
IMAGINE what an ad with unicorns and glitter can do!
a mother in a house holding a kid who is on a respirator. Not a hot chick or a pickup truck in sight.
People who produce commercials spend a lot of time and money targeting specific audiences. That doesn’t mean that they always do a good job. Personally, I think the senate election is Brown’s to lose. Calling him a babykiller is not going to change much. The commercial strikes me as a pretty obvious attempt to do what I said. Bear in mind, my side of the political spectrum hasn’t been known for its effective wholesale politics.
You think this is about global warming:
Really?
And the direct charge:
He didn’t vote to eliminate any existing standards. He voted to remove the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gasses in the future.
Look, no one watches this ad and thinks it’s about future increases in ground-level ozone caused by global warming, that the EPA may or may not attempt to control by regulating greenhouse gases at some future date. Any reasonable person who watches this ad will assume that Brown voted to strip the books of established regulations of noxious pollutants. I know Brown isn’t too popular around here, but I don’t see how anyone can fairly interpret this ad as anything but a lie.
n/t
It could go something like this; . John Kerry voted for CO2 emission standards in the US. The net result of these emission standards will be to increase electricity rates in the US and move jobs to China. The products made in China are made with electricity provided by power plants with much more lax pollution controls and much less efficient power plants The net result of this vote will be to INCREASE CO2 emissions and indirectly increase Ozone concentration.
Actually the lead example is a great one. By increasing electricity rates, toy manufacturing moves to china and what happens – we get toys made with minimal manufacturing standards and with lead paint 🙁
The law of unintended consequences bites again.
“He didn’t vote to eliminate any existing standards. He voted to remove the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gasses in the future.”
Uh, yeah.
It’s an important distinction. When the ad says that Brown voted to “eliminate clean air standards” for tailpipe emissions, the implication is that he voted to allow leaded gasoline again. Heck, even your own post plays on this lie. If you want to put the moral burden of global warming on Brown’s shoulders — fine, be my guest — but this ad does something very different, and I think you know it.
Why are we supposed to take Scott Brown seriously when he can’t come clean with his views on global warming?
Why are all the current and former Democratic congressional representatives in this state such cowards that they won’t run against him just because they are afraid that they will lose? (I’ll give the relative newbies Bill Keating and Nikki Tsongas a pass.)