Bbauer writes:
"I agree this is ridiculous. And I do not think cap and trade is the answer. Unfortunately (much like the Iraq) thing, it seems our politicians feel everything must be sensationalized in order to sell it to the public. However, I also get the sense that some on the right are taking an extra step in their logic here: cap and trade = crap therefore protecting environment = bad.
I get a sense of civic schizophrenia here. On one hand we deplore hyperconsumerism that has a golf cart bought on credit in every garage, a Bratz doll in every mini Britney wannabe grasping hand. On the other hand we certainly don't want to do anything to keep the companies we work for from turning profits. We love to get out in nature on the weekend, but certainly don't want to spend a tax dollar protecting it. For God's sake man, even dogs don't crap in their own bed. We are not going to protect our own environment? We can't do better? We should be out in front on such a noble cause. Remember that whole God and Country thing? Well God is nature. Where are all the right wing alternatives? Or when the thing dies in the Senate are we going to celebrate by pouring old motor oil into the gutter marked "drains into the ocean" with a picture of Flipper?"
I appreciate the additional nuance and texture to previously made points. I feel I have more to go on now, more to respond to.
My main problem with your view is that I think there are several issues interwoven and confused in one broadside fired at "some on the right". Firstly, questioning the science behind global warming does not make someone anti-environment. It makes someone anti-hype, anti-pop science, anti-science as therapy, anti-science as politics.
Secondly, questioning the economics of cap and trade or other potentially economically detrimental measures in response to the growing body of science questioning man's actual contribution to climate change as a portion of that which mother nature herself causes, seems logical and prudent in light of the sweeping and disruptive changes advocated by some in pursuit of carbon neutrality.
Thirdly, many on the right (myself included) WANT to protect the environment. I've always seen a natural bridge between religious/social conservatives (which I am not) and environmentalists on this front, one worth trying to forge. But this environmentalism does not always take as a default approach "what man wants=bad, what nature needs=good". This galls environmentalists and creates policy wads like ANWR, in which an infinitesimally small portion of a gigantic piece of Arctic barren-ness would be put under production.
Next, lying/trumping/hyping global warming as a way to wean Americans from a carbon based lifestyle is ridiculous in light of the more effective methods available. How about PSA's with pictures of collapsing Twin Towers....with words on the screen below saying "the people who sell us our oil funded this with the money we gave them". You want to build support for conservation, for alternative energy, for clean energy among conservatives? Present a real threat, not one that could cause someone's great, great, great, grandchild to have to live eight miles further inland.
Finally, and most importantly, while I realize that you use this blog to speak to the "right" as you see it, I want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I too want to protect the environment. I too want to wean us from the carbon release of burning foreign fuel. This is why I am such a strong proponent of nuclear power (like the Sierra Club is), though it has no chance of going anywhere with this administration as long as it lets Harry Reid sit Shiva over Yucca Mountain. This is why I have PUBLICLY stated that the free market is in all likelihood not going to be an effective mechanism for diversifying our energy supply and reducing our reliance on foreign fuel. This is why I have written glowingly of hybrid auto technology and flex-fuel technology in this blog. I recite my resume here because in the grand scheme of things...I'm pretty "mainstream" right on these issues. Sure, you can point to statements made by weirdos and whackos on the right--just as I can on the left. I don't however, confuse them with what the responsible people are saying and thinking.
Protecting and conserving the environment is an important policy goal and a moral imperative. Yep, I said it. A MORAL imperative. But it is not a suicide pact, and it is not an agreement to return us to an agrarian economy. The hype and glamor of the global climate change movement has created a situation in which those who question its scientific integrity are marginalized and considered to be anti-environment, when all they are is anti-global climate change movement. There are loads and loads of things we can do as a society and that we SHOULD do as a society that will protect our environment. We should not do so as a response to pop science wielded by those with a political axe to grind. We should do so in response to real threats, and to the basic morality of protecting the Earth God gave us.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Well spoken Bryan.
Nuance is appreciated and hard to find. I agree with anonymous, well said.
If Congress did something like allowing drilling in ANWR in exchange for enhanced fleet mileage standards, Americns would applaud the move.
But keep in mind that there are many examples of true leftist scum serving in Congress who want nothing more than to destroy our way of life so that they can rebuild us in the mold of the "new socialist man". They certainly are not looking for practical compromise.
I do bristle at the heading though. More correctly it is my view of some on the far right. I have plenty of negative views about some on the far left as well. I'm conservative remember, as in marked by moderation. -but perhaps being the son of an honest enviromental scientist, the husband of a marine biology major, and a few too many bacterial infections from surfing in the Pacific has skewed my thinking.
Keep up the good work.
This is meandering and barely coherent because of my ill mastery of written communication and frustration at the issue. Hopefully, you’ll glean something useful from it.
CW seems to be more progressive on environmental issues than most of his brethren. My impression is that the right talks about the environment using the “I believe the environment is important, but….” Rarely do I hear of them leading the charge on the issue. Please debunk alarmism and pop-science, but maybe say, “here’s where there might be some areas of concern.” Policy stances can’t always cleave so neatly along party lines can they? I am skeptical about the assertion that “responsible people” are really thinking about the environment. It is talk about environmental solutions that will in no way impact the prime directive of free markets and consumption. From Heritage about energy security:
“Government should establish reasonable due-diligence standards for safety, security, and environmental con¬cerns. This will require a high degree of trans¬parency and effective information-sharing between government and industry, a mecha¬nism to assess compliance and performance, and a non-bureaucratic way to enforce regula¬tions.”
Ok, such as? What is reasonable? Oftentimes, what I have considered reasonable, I saw lax enforcement by the previous administration. http://wikileaks.org/leak/crs/RL34384.pdf
A quick search of the term “environment” on Nat’l Review’s website yields what seemed mostly to be critiques of the climatists claims and various examples of hahahha, they were wrong. I didn’t find any proposed solutions. Are not the writers for National Review not responsible people?
(continued)
From the www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment Mostly boilerplate stuff, nothing really substantive. Here’s one that kills me though.
“A robust economy will be essential to dealing with the risk of climate change, and we will insist on reasonable policies that do not force Americans to sacrifice their way of life or trim their hopes and dreams for their children. “
Again with the reasonable. Don’t impinge on a family’s ability to afford a flat screen for every room, multiple cars, a cell phone in every hand and a Wii for every child. Wait a few years and repeat. It is these things constitute the American dream. The dream is to APPEAR to have it better than one’s parents and to shower one’s children with the things that will turn them into similarly driven adults. Because if we don’t consume, it isn’t reasonable.
I cringe at the left's religion of climate change, but I know we ought to do something more. I share in bbauer’s “civic schizophrenia”. My general observations lead me to believe that we cannot continue to spoil our environment in the name our consumption economy, blind to the long term impact.
I don’t want central planning, but I believe Dan Ariely when he says people are “predictably irrational.” Because of that irrationality, I am less sanguine that the oligarchs of the “free” enterprise will help us to arrive at the best solution. We do not always act in our own best interests even in the short term when taken the time the stakes are clearly laid out. Present a problem that is in the long term, even beyond our own lifetimes, and our ability to really act, much less care, is poor.
Aren’t there really four questions here ?(ignoring the question of whether it is manmade) :
1) climate change is real; we act 2) climate change is not real; we do not act 3) climate change is real; we do not act 4) climate change is not real; we act. Which is greater? The cost of acting or not acting. Yes, there is GREAT uncertainty - a understatement. Even if the probability is small, how bad will the consequences be if we do nothing versus how bad will the consequences be if we slightly retard our economy’s growth in an attempt to game an inflection point?
Maybe the cost is nothing if it happens after the current decision makers die. Sure they care about their grand kids, but given the GREAT uncertainty, it is really hard to be compelled to act. Especially, since one’s party dogma is Consumptianity. The free market messiah, TechoChrist will probably return to save us in case it proves to be true.
I believe we are judged by what we leave behind and that what isn’t the ability to buy as much crap as we want without constraint or consequence.
I think the CW is an exception. I don’t believe he is alone, but I don’t feel there are enough like him in his party, nor do I believe there any of its leaders willing to take up a mantle of responsible environmentalism that in any way runs afoul (if even slightly) with the God of Consumption.
I should mention that the term "civic schizophrenia" I borrow from "Consumed" by Benjamin Barber. A good read if you go into it without bias and can get through his use of the word "puerile" 37,000 times in the first 100 pages.
I would certainly like to hear CW's take on the book.
Post a Comment