South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford wrote a good op-ed in today’s Washington Post about the importance of conservatives engaging in the climate change debate. It is noteworthy more for his description of how fundamental conservative principles can be applied to solving climate change than simply for his belief that something needs to be done about it.
Climate solutions need to promote stewardship, economic opportunity, and innovation, the governor says, and if we conservatives don’t start seeking such solutions soon, the narrow window of opportunity open to us will close.
He’s absolutely right.
If we conservatives aren’t at the table to inject our principles into the debate and encourage market-based solutions to climate change that unleash America’s entrepreneurial spirit, we’ll find ourselves on the menu.
Sidenote: The existence of a narrow window of opportunity to avoid radical climate solutions isn’t lost on one Democrat. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) was quoted recently, saying, “I would rather write a climate change bill and have that be adopted as national law while there is a Republican in the White House than a Democrat.”
So, my fellow conservatives, there’s still a seat for us at the table. It’s time to pull up a chair.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 23rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm and is filed under Climate Change, Politics/Government . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
It seems that Sanford’s main concern about climate change is that ocean levels are rising. If humans are causing sea levels to rise, would it make sense if sea level rise would have accelerated as temperatures rose? The best data we have (from satellites) shows us that sea level rise has not increased. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=859 The problem is that sea level has been rising for the last 18,000 years. Humans, if exerting any influence, have only exerted a very small influence?
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
[...] Last week, contributor Tucker Eskew wrote about Governor Mark Sanford’s op-ed in the Washington Post, a forward-thinking pieceĀ aboutĀ theĀ needĀ forĀ conservativesĀ toĀ engageĀ inĀ theĀ environmental debate, or eventually “find ourselves on the menu.” [...]
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
It’s insane how politicians use energy as a political tool. Our population has grown and the number of auto and energy demands have increase, yet we haven’t built one new refinery or nuclear power plan in over thirty years. Plus we have many new oil reserves, especially in the Gulf and Alaska. Off the top of my head the following represents our use of energy,
Solar 2%
Wind 1%
Hydro 5%
Nuclear 20%
Oil/Coal 73%
Technology has reduced the amount of energy used and created greater efficiency. Conservation is actively engaged nationwide, but it has a limit to actually how much it can reduce energy consumption.
Oil & coal reserves are plentiful in our hemisphere, but politicians all talk about renewable energy sources as the immediate solution to our dependency on Middle East Oil. Renewable energy will not reduce consumption of oil/coal enough to make a difference now or 50 years from now unless a practical alternative to the internal combustion engine is developed and marketed at a price consumers can afford.
In the end, the marketplace will decide on what we will use for energy. Presently, it’s oil. The government cannot force restrictions on energy use to comply with a politicians “wet dream” about the brave new world of “green energy use.”
I have thoroughly researched global warming and I have concluded the “so called science” is inconclusive. Therefore, policy decisions cannot be made based on assumptions, possibilities, or how hairs stand up on the back of one’s head. This plays into energy. It’s a prefect excuse not to explore for more oil.
The Yaoto Agreement is a politically correct proposal to limit the U.S. production of “so-called” green house gases, but with little restrictions on the rest of the world. Stupid. How can any sensible person go along with such a one-sided proposal based upon inconclusive information.
Oil is a miracle of nature that has increased the forward progress of mankind and it will continue to do so in the future.
In short, human nature is our own worst enemy. The greed, ignorance, and short sided views of clearly unqualified Senators and Representatives will continue to be an obstacle in creating an energy independent U.S.
This is the solution is for the electorate to place men and women of vision and not ideologues and socialist as our representatives. We need to drill, conserve, develop, invest, use nuclear, and get a fusion/Hydrogen auto prototype in place for mass production in 15 years. Other advanced possibilities include a fusion reactor sometime around 2050. That will solve all energy problems.