I also think that the motives of the liberal environmentalists ought to be questioned. I am sure that you will find that there are those who are more interested in advancing their world socialist agenda at the expense of the USA than really care about the environment just as surely as you can find big businesses more interested in making a buck than in the environment.

The greatest failure of the conservative movement is its failure to go out and explain and sell their positions to the people. And this is on every issue, not just the environment. Every time they raise an issue they meekly allow themselves to be shouted down with over emotional nonsense like “they want to poison our drinking water”, “they want our grandparents to be forced to eat dog food”, or look at the poor polar bear on his ever shrinking ice berg. Nobody refutes their allegations. Instead, the Mccain-s, Bushes and Dole-s of the world cave in and agree to some “compromise” legislation until the left gets what they wanted, but in increments.

Environmentalists friends have hyperventilated to me many times over how the air and the water just keep getting dirtier and we must do something. They refuse to acknowledge the progress that has been made in cleaning up the air & water over the last several decades. One day they are in a tizzy about banning mercury thermometers, the next day in a tizzy about how we all need to use mercury containing compact fluorescent bulbs. There were scientists in the 70-s who wanted to spread coal dust on the polar ice caps to reverse global cooling. Where would we be now if that would have happened? But we cant learn from our mistakes. Instead we must make knee jerk reactions in the opposite extreme.

When William F. Buckley Jr. had his TV show, he would have hippie radicals on from time to time. While they spewed their emotional propaganda nonsense he would reply with calm reasoned responses. This is what conservatives ought to be doing with the environmental debate, and I think that is what Newt is trying to accomplish. Conservatives need to start making calm and reasoned arguments about the environment, economics, and national security and keep saying it until the message gets across. Start worrying about the long term views of the people, not about winning the next election.

1. Green conservatives claim green conservatism is an alternative that is more rational and viable than liberal environmentalism, which is not the truth

2. Green conservatives claim that environmentalists rely solely on litigation, regulation or statist solutions to environmental degradation, which is not the truth

3. Given the rhetoric it often seems that green conservatives have developed market-based mechanisms as an environmental management tool to fight environmental degradation, which is not the truth

4. Green conservatives ignore and leave environmentalists left asking the tough more applicable questions to environmental degradation like what will we do about an increasing world population

5. Green conservatives demonize litigation and regulation when in reality these tools are very much needed especially under the Bush Administration

6. Green conservatives are stealing elements of environmentalism like market-based mechanisms and making them their own. Environmentalists have been using market-based mechanisms to fight environmental degradation when appropriate. Certain fisheries use quota systems as a natural resource management tool but the quota system must exist within a regulatory framework. Otherwise, people will cheat.

7. The Law of Entropy will not allow free markets/market-based regulatory systems to stand alone

8. Personally, I believe it is dangerous to politicize environmentalism because environmentalism at its core is not to be politicized. Politicization demands benefit to politics or a political ideology or system and not towards the environment or Nature.

“conservatism…wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in.” You are literally cherry picking the elements, which sound the best.

IMHO, what is happening here is that the concerns of the right regarding the environment is simply being ignored. Therefore, I applaud this blog for tackling this issue; however, Newt made a horrible error in judgment by nationally advertising with Pelosi. Talk about a sure-fire way to insult the true Republican base! He could have done a pro-environmental push without her by his side. That would have carried a heck of a lot more weight. Instead, it was revolting to see him sitting there next to that destructive female politician.

I was sent a respectful e-mail regarding this blog and its purpose; sincere thanks for that as I’d not yet heard of it. However, while I respect your sentiments regarding what Newt has done, I cannot support his actions. I do; however, agree with you that red-staters need join the environmental debate. Guess I’m meeting you halfway??

Godspeed.

The problem I (and many of my fellow conservatives, I’m sure) have with climate change hysteria is the idea that man is causing it. These natural cycles have been in effect long before humans were belching out CO2 or using oil for millions of vehicles around the world. To think that man has had a drastic impact upon the global climate is not only the height of arrogance, but also to show a vast misunderstanding of the global climate itself.

Sure, climate change is happening, but we are not the cause. If, then, we are not the cause, there is really nothing significant we can do to ‘fix’ it. So, get government out of the way (how’s that for a creative solution?) and let the free market incent those who innovate to improve emissions or find alternative fuels that are effective.

That is a true solution that will work.

Nice one, Jack.

I gotta say: You guys need to wake up in the 21st century and get with the program. There are plenty of legitimate arguments about what to do about climate change. Conservatives ought to be weighing in with creative solutions to this, and some are. But flogging the dead horse of denying it’s happening is looking increasingly silly. It will only marginalize and isolate conservatives in the end. Almost everywhere I look, mainstream conservative leaders — like Newt, like President Bush (at least in lip service), like Governor Schwarzenegger (OK, you can argue whether he’s a conservative), even Pat Roberston for cryin’ out loud — have gotten over it. They have accepted the overwhelming evidence for human-induced climate change and moved on to the hard job of figuring out what to do about it. I salute them. Many of the comments in this forum, in contrast, seem to be coming out of a time warp.