What You Won't Hear in the Presidential Debates: Conservative Solutions to Climate Change

Conservative groups are moving away from denying climate change and toward crafting practical solutions to the problem.

So far the environment has gotten short shrift in the debates, apart from both Obama and Romney sucking up to King Coal, and Ryan complaining about the green jobs money his state gladly took. Both candidates seem hesitant to delve into the issue—Obama for fear of being accused of spending or regulating too much, and Romney for fear of appearing not conservative enough.

The thing is, not all conservatives are global-warming-denying, gas-guzzling coal lovers. It's that climate science has a branding problem. Few other sciences are so politicized. Fewer still are referred to as something that people can choose to either believe in or not. As the topic of climate change has become more and more politicized, the practical issues surrounding it—everything from energy and water efficiency to cleantech innovation—have become colored by party politics. Oil and coal have become energy sources conservatives must love, while things like energy efficiency and renewable energy have become stand-ins for liberal politics, government intervention, taxes, take your pick.

Resource efficiency and clean air and water, however, are issues that clearly cross the aisle. So it is that some conservative groups are working now not to discount the existence of climate change, but to craft solutions that eschew government intervention.

Conservatives have been so busy fighting back the big-government policy prescriptions that follow progressive sentiments that we've neglected to take the lead on prudent solutions," says Alex Bozmoski, director of strategy and operations for the Energy & Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University, a new organization that's intent on making a free market case for tackling global warming. "So climate change has been somewhat monopolized by 'liberal' sentiment, but a solution that works will be delivered by conservatives.

Bozmoski and his team propose "eliminating all fuel subsidies—including both fossil fuels and renewables—and reducing taxes on something we want more of, which is income, and shifting that tax onto something we probably want less of, which is greenhouse-gas pollution.

The Energy & Enterprise Initiative (E&EI) also supports a carbon tax, as opposed to a carbon trading scheme. "A revenue-neutral carbon tax-swap is a pro-growth solution that allows fuels to compete on their merits and 'true cost' instead of competing on their ability to attract political patronage or socialize their costs," Bozmoski says.

While E&EI brings conservatives into the climate change debate by focusing on the economics of the issue, the recently launched Young Conservatives for Energy Reform highlights the health issues caused or exacerbated by air and water pollution. "The more research I did on this issue, I realized this was really a family issue," Michele Combs, with Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, recently told NPR. "It affects everybody; everybody wants clean air. And it was really sad that it was such a partisan issue."

Combs has been working to educate her conservative peers on these issues as well as the implications energy-, water-, and food-scarcity have on national security. Which brings us to perhaps the most active conservative group when it comes to climate change: the military.

For years now, the U.S. military has been one of the largest funders of renewable energy technologies as well as various other clean technologies, not because it's politically attractive but because it's practical. On the battlefield, reducing energy consumption isn't about saving money or the planet, and it's got zero to do with anyone's political beliefs.

"It's about saving lives," says Colonel Peter Newell, director of the Army's Rapid Equipping Force (REF). Newell's organization measures the effectiveness of equipment from the viewpoint of the soldier on the ground in the fight. "At the tactical edge, we don’t look at energy efficiency in terms of saving gallons, we count it in lives saved. That’s really what we focus on."
Newell explains that from sustaining remote bases, which need energy and water, to supporting soldiers, who are being given increasingly more energy-reliant equipment to carry in their packs, reducing energy consumption and employing technologies capable of recharging multiple items are strategic imperatives.
Whether it's economics, health, or national security, the conservative road in to the climate change debate is paved with practical solutions and today's problems, not the heady talk of CO2 emissions and future environmental disasters that so often color the left side of the issue.
"The left aggressively uses apocalyptic visions of environmental calamity to justify big-government action," Bozmoski says. "Americans quite rightly look askance at bureaucrats and politicians that claim that the sky will fall unless government centrally plans massive changes to the energy mix and to consumer behavior."
Focusing on issues like clean air and water help place climate change in territory conservatives find more comfortable, historically, as well. Republicans have a strong history of valuing land and wildlife conservation that stretches back to Theodore Roosevelt, who created the U.S. Forest Service; established 51 Federal Bird Reservations, four National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, and five National Parks; and enabled the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments. During his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230 million acres of public land.
"Conservatives have a tremendous, historical record of leading conservation efforts," Bozmoski says. "We believe strongly in principles of accountability, liberty, eternal society, stewardship of creation, and our duty to posterity. Progressives are strong on delivering sentiments—and I'm with them on wanting clean air—but conservatives are needed to deliver prudent solutions."
This is the seventh installment in a series of essays provoking a conversation around the invisible issues of Election 2012—those crucial topics that hide in plain sight as the two candidates square off during the presidential debates this month. \n


Image (cc) flickr user Naturesdawn


Four black women, Engineers Christine Darden and Mary Jackson, mathematician Katherine Johnson, and computer programmer Dorothy Vaughn, worked as "human computers" at NASA during the Space Race, making space travel possible through their complex calculations. Jackson, Johnson, and Vaughn all played a vital role in helping John Glenn become the first American to orbit the Earth.

They worked behind the scenes, but now they're getting the credit they deserve as their accomplishments are brought to the forefront. Their amazing stories were detailed in the book Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race by Margot Lee Shetterly, which was later turned into a movie. (Darden was not featured in the movie, but was in the book). Johnson has a building at NASA named after her, and a street in front of NASA's Washington D.C. headquarters was renamed "Hidden Figures Way."

Keep Reading Show less

Between Alexa, Siri, and Google, artificial intelligence is quickly changing us and the way we live. We no longer have to get up to turn on the lights or set the thermostat, we can find the fastest route to work with a click, and, most importantly, tag our friends in pictures. But interacting with the world isn't the only thing AI is making easier – now we can use it save the world, too.

Keep Reading Show less
Good News
Courtesy of John S. Hutton, MD

A report from Common Sense Media found the average child between the ages of 0 and 8 has 2 hours and 19 minutes of screen time a day, and 35% of their screen time is on a mobile device. A new study conducted by the Cincinnati Children's Hospital published in the journal, JAMA Pediatrics, found exactly what all that screen time is doing to your kid, or more specifically, your kid's developing brain. It turns out, more screen time contributes to slower brain development.

First, researchers gave the kids a test to determine how much and what kind of screen time they were getting. Were they watching fighting or educational content? Were they using it alone or with parents? Then, researchers examined the brains of children aged 3 to 5 year olds by using MRI scans. Forty seven brain-healthy children who hadn't started kindergarten yet were used for the study.

They found that kids who had more than one hour of screen time a day without parental supervision had lower levels of development in their brain's white matter, which is important when it comes to developing cognitive skills, language, and literacy.

Keep Reading Show less
via KTVU / YouTube

The 63-year-old Oakland-Alameda Coliseum, currently branded the RingCentral Coliseum, is one of the most decrepit sports venues in America.

The home to the the NFL's Oakland Raiders (until they move to Las Vegas next season) and MLB's A's, is notoriously known as the Black Hole and has made headlines for its frequent flooding and sewage issues.

One of the stadium's few positive aspects is its connection to public transportation.

Keep Reading Show less
Hero Video
via Anadirc / Flickr

We spend roughly one-third of our life asleep, another third at work and the final third trying our best to have a little fun.

But is that the correct balance? Should we spend as much time at the office as we do with our friends and family? One of the greatest regrets people have on their deathbeds is that they spent too much of their time instead of enjoying quality time with friends and family.

Lawmakers in the United Kingdom have made a significant pledge to reevaluate the work-life balance in their country.

Keep Reading Show less