Well, last week’s post about Newt Gingrich and green conservatism generated quite a debate among our readers and quickly became, I believe, the most-read post in the history of Terra Rossa. So I thought I’d try to keep that discussion going by talking a little bit more about some of the issues raised by that post.
First off, climate change. I believe that climate change is happening, and that human activity is contributing to it, at least partially. I don’t, however, agree with the a lot of the rhetoric I hear from Al Gore and many other liberal environmentalists, and I think that global climate change is just one of many important problems that the U.S. needs to address. This blog’s sponsors and I don’t always agree on all of these issues, and that’s okay – this is a complicated issue about which reasonable people can disagree.
Regardless of one’s own personal views about climate change, however, Americans are in agreement on this issue – survey after survey has shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans believes that climate change is happening, most believe that human activity is a contributing factor, and they want the government to take action on the issue. This is true of conservatives, moderates and liberals; Republicans, independents, and Democrats.
Public opinion on this issue has reached critical mass, and Congress is going to take action. And action means taking steps to reduce carbon emissions. It’s no longer a matter of if this is going to happen, but when, and how. And I think conservatives need to play a role in that debate that is constructive – not only will it be the right move politically, but also will lead to better solutions than the Democrats will come up with on their own.
If we do it right, reducing carbon emissions can be a catalyst to moving our country into a new energy future. I’ll talk more about my expectations in this area next week. For now, I’d like to know what our readers think about this issue.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 9:30 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Cap and Trade, Climate Change, Politics/Government, Stewardship . 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.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Here is a piece that I had at Fox News on this issue. Even if you are somehow correct that global temperatures are still rising and mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures (and those claims are probably not right), that still does not imply that something should be done. If the answer to both preceding questions is “yes,” is an increase temperature changes “bad”? Finally, let’s assume that the answer to all three previous questions is “yes.” Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear. My piece goes through those points.
Finally, even if most people say what you say they do in the polls, those same polls don’t put it as a very important issue for most people. In addition, if most people said that we should have socialize medicine, would you then support socialized medicine?
April 30th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I understand the line of reasoning here, I really do. It’s the same line of reasoning that has led to the massive expansion of government over the last eighty years or so. Conservatives are, by and large, afraid to get beat up on issues that are important to them. I’ll relate this to something I learned from my father when I was ten. In a fight, the guy who is more willing to get hit will win more often than not.
Even if we accept the premise that climate change has a man-made component, the idea that simply trying to craft a slightly better form of massive government intervention somehow constitutes a noble effort is laughable. You can concede the premise of climate change without damaging your cause. You can even concede an anthropogenic component without giving up the fight. You cannot concede the need for government to “solve” the problem without opening the door for every leftist fantasy program imaginable. This is the same game plan that has been used by leftists for everything from poverty to eminent domain. We concede ground in increments while they concede nothing. Eventually, we’re arguing on their terms and the fight is all but over.
As for the “people demand government action” issue, all I can say is that convincing people of the proper course of action is our job. If everyone is clamoring for bureaucratic interference, then it’s the job of conservatives to explain, in coherent and compelling fashion, why that interference will eventually produce more harm than good. You don’t do that by sitting on a couch with Pelosi and sending people to Al Gore’s website. It’s a stupid strategy and someone with Newt’s experience should know better.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Whit, I’d add one more reason climate action should be bipartisan. As a liberal, I don’t want to ram through climate action next year with only a few Republicans crossing the aisle to cross the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Why? I don’t want this to be a partisan victory that Republicans wouldn’t be invested in and would be looking to undo as soon as they get the chance. Let’s make this a bipartisan victory that we all can celebrate as our legacy to future generations.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:32 am
Climate change is not a matter of belief - it is a question of evidence. The evidence, unfortunately for liberals, does not at all support man being the cause of it.
Accepting the premise that climate change is man-made is accepting a false premise that undermines our most fundamental beliefs, and therefore our most fundamental argument for a conservative victory. Evidence shows that the climate is changing, but not according to anything man has done. There are cycles to all of these natural processes - in the past 100 years, we’ve been through at least two warming cycles and two cooling cycles. Climate change was happening long before the industrial revolution, so it’s laughable to think that we any noticeable effect on things.
Ask yourself this: why is it that pretty much every effort to ’save’ the environment ends up hurting people? I’ve blogged about numerous examples of this - DDT in Africa, lighter cars cause more traffic deaths, etc. It’s because the premise is faulty.
There is no demonstrable evidence that carbon emissions, in particular, have a negative effect on the environment. In fact, I believe I read recently that there is a pending lawsuit against Al Gore and his carbon credit company for defrauding people - they accept money in return for a service that isn’t proven to accomplish anything. I will be very interested in seeing the results of that lawsuit.
If we want to do anything to help the environment, we first need to reject the premise that government can fix anything, especially not through more regulation and taxation. Then, we need to unleash the free market, letting the American public decide how much they want to reward so-called ‘green’ measures. If things like hybrid cars and swirly light bulbs fly, great. If they don’t, that’s okay, too.
In the absence of evidence, we simply cannot roll over on the principle of the matter. This is the key problem, and one that neither you nor Gingrich seem to grasp.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Thanks for the info….I am trying to put together a list of what celebs are doing to help the environment. Ed Begley Jr. is having a sweepstakes where he flys you to Hollywood and gives you tips on how to go green ( http://www.earthlab.com/life/livingwithed/ ) Pretty crazy stuff. Obviously there are many others. Drop me a link if you have any on the top of your head. Thanks again for the info!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:10 am
[...] conservative voices into the debate over energy and the environment (see part 1 here, and part 2 here). My views on these issues have generated quite a debate among our readers, and I’ve taken [...]