Because Obama has done so much to combat this issue.
He’s trying his best and has done a lot – more than any other prez after Nixon (Nixon and Teddy Roosevelt being the best environmental presidents).
The congress is horrid on this issue – prob bec the American people who sent them there are so bad, and of course we know the Koch/Exxon/Scaife moneys that paid for their campaigns has had its intended effect.
Obama has some failures on environmental policy – such as approving part of the XL pipeline to bring corrosive bitumen from Canada that will corrode pipes and poison our aquifers and lands – so that Canada (not us) can sell oil to the Chinese. We don’t really need those temporary jobs building pipelines that will do us great harm, poisoning our land for 1000s of years. And there have been some other failures.
However, he upped the CAFE standards which flatlined after the 70s – with improved tech going into bigger, heavier, more powerful cars than into more efficient cars. That alone will get us to the Copenhagen commitment he made re reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and also reduce local pollution – which among other health harms causes miscarriages.
He has toughened coal power regs – which will help save lives.
He has talked about reducing subsidies & tax-breaks to oil and coal – but I’m thinking since the American people and their reps are so evil, that probably won’t happen.
He has provided loans to alt energy and other environmental projects – some of which failed (everyone cites Solyndra), but many of which have succeeded and are either paid off or are on track to be paid off (with interest).
He supports continuing the tax credit for utility scale wind generation.
He has given the EPA the authority to regulate GHGs.
Romney on the other hand is against all of these environmental policies and for annihilating life on planet earth, refusing to even consider that global warming and other local and regional environmental problems are a serious threat to health and life. He is a “drill, baby, drill” candiate with no heart for human health or life. It is totally impossible for me to think he could sincerely be against abortion (that anti-environmental stance, along with an anti-health care stance).
Unfortunately the converse is not true – it is possible for people concerned about the environment and their children’s future to be pro-abortion…of other people’s children, so their own stand a better chance. That would be truly selfish and evil, tho no one is claiming to be pro-abortion, only pro-choice (that it is not the gov’s role to decide whether a woman should or should not get an abortion).
But saying there are no environmental issues threatening the health and lives of people (or it is not the gov role to try and reduce these threats) is just as evil, if not more so, bec that involves harm to everyone’s progeny, not just other people’s. The gov very much has a right to step in when people are causing harm to other people, otherwise what is the use of gov in the first place.
If people refuse to accept there are serious environmental problems harming and killing people and even more serious ones in the pipes or in process that could kill off a large portion (perhaps all) of life and humanity, so be it. Vote your mind and your conscience.
