Climate Sunday--A Tale of Two Primary Candidates

Because I'm not just an environmentalist at heart, but a stone-cold political junkie, I couldn't resist killing two birds with one stone, and introducing the GOP-approved State of the Union rebuttal choice, Marco Rubio, and the Tea Party chosen rebuttal speaker, Rand Paul, as probable 2016 Republican presidential primary contestants, just enjoying something of a practice run by flaunting their respective oratory chops. But because it's Climate Sunday here at Strangely Blogged, I would be amiss if I didn't point out that these are both pretty bad candidates as far as environment and climate change issues are concerned.  We're a long way from really putting the two head to head, but I did rustle up a little bit of insight on both of them:

Marco Rubio:  He is not a scientist, man. 

"First of all, the climate is always changing. That's not the fundamental question," Rubio said when asked at a BuzzFeed event if global warming is a threat to Florida. "The fundamental question is whether man-made activity is what's contributing most to it. I understand that people say there is a significant scientific consensus on that issue, but I've actually seen reasonable debate on that principle." 

Rubio, a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, went on to question if government could do anything to address the issue, whether it would be too costly or ineffective if other countries do not do the same. 

"The United States is a country; it's not a planet," he said.

He goes out of his way to be a not-very-scientist thing.  You can tell.

The United States is a country on a planet that is experiencing global warming. Your move, Senator.

And then there's:

Rand Paul: Who Loves Coal Like It Was His Job 

In a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, Paul also asserted that the number of black lung cases has been on the decline. But according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), in recent years such incidences have in fact been on the risein certain areas of coal country. 

"Every regulation doesn't save lives," Paul said in the hearing, later adding that the regulations so far have done a “pretty good job” of reducing black lung. "There is a point or a balancing act between when a regulation becomes burdensome enough that our energy production is stifled. We have to assess the costs of regulation and whether they save lives." 

Paul’s comments didn’t escape the notice of mining safety advocates. 

“I thought it was outrageous,” said Stephen Sanders, director of the Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, a Kentucky-based non-profit that supports black lung prevention regulations and other mine safety causes. “What he’s suggesting is to keep the cost of coal down we would jeopardize the health of coal miners.”

Really--Google Rand Paul and coal. He loves it like it was his job. I don't know if he knows it's not his job to love coal more than he loves things like maybe, protecting the air, water, and land his constituents enjoy. It's kind of a thing. It might have to do with donations from coal companies or being edgy and libertarian, in a sense where he doesn't understand that the coal companies' rights end where your and my lungs begin.

Won't we have fun watching these two!