I completely agree with you analysis of the candidates.
I receive emails from the Sierra club because I attended a meeting opposing the coal terminal in my county in WA state. I now have a new opinion of the Sierra club, from those emails. Most of the members of the Sierra Club seem to be well-intentioned dupes that just aren’t that smart.
One of issues that was covered in the last email notice was mercury in tuna. They warned that coal burning power plants could be polluting your tunafish sandwich with mercury because the coal burning power plants were polluting lakes streams.
The lawyers who run it are another matter.
They warned that coal burning power plants could be polluting your tunafish sandwich with mercury because the coal burning power plants were polluting lakes streams.
Burning coal does introduce a lot of mercury, but a forest or brush fire in a cinnabar formation produces a lot more. The amount released from coal plants compared to background sources is not that big a deal and it could be a lot less if there was an economic reason to invest in new plants. With the threat of the Sierra Club around, regulatory risk becomes a big part of that decision.
You'll note that I didn't list Romney as "better qualified." There is a reason. Anybody who institutes an effectively socialized market in healthcare is too crooked to consider as "qualified" to be President. Anyone who engages in situational policy preferences without a serious explanation for the change is too dishonest to consider (Perry falls under that category too). Romney fails both.