Allow me a brief return to this discussion on Republicans and the environment. The original post picked up coverage from Postman and some thoughts from Will at Horse's Ass as well.
Considering the comments and content at all three locations I'd say conservatives should be concerned about the state of affairs. The most prominent Republicans cited, Ralph Munro, Bill Ruckelshaus, and Dan Evans, are now largely out of the public eye and candidly fit the mold of a Northeastern Republican rather than the "conservative conservationist" described by Governor Sanford in the op-ed I originally cited.
Likewise with Fred Jarret, who despite his good faith work on education and transportation (an excellent tutorial on one way Republicans can be relevant in the suburbs) remains by his own admission discordant with the Republican party on many issues, including the environment. Lastly, Jim Nobles seems like a stand-up guy and all, but he's hardly the sort of recognizable Republican official needed to assume the mantle of articulating a conservative position that balances conservation with other societal concerns.
Watching the Democratic majorities at work in Olympia and Washington, DC it is clear their proposed "solutions" to global warming are garnering increasing debate. Republicans need more elected leaders capable of finding the right balance between conserving the environment and protecting economic growth and property rights.
Some commenters at the original post seem to have thought my mere discussion of the environment as a top-tier issue (which it remains in this region) meant I was encouraging Republicans to play "me-too" with Democrats. No.
I'm arguing that in a representative democracy Republicans need to be better at speaking with thought and clarity on the conservative position related to an issue on which local voters consistently place value. Right now that's not happening, and with attention on global warming "solutions" growing that needs to change. The stakes of such policy proposals are too high to leave a rhetorical vacuum for the other side of the debate to exploit.
Correction: The original post errantly read Phil Nobles rather than Jim Nobles; my bad.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 02, 2007 07:31 AM | Email This"Respectfully" Patrick had the first mention.
Posted by: Reporterward on March 2, 2007 08:34 AMI have editorialized about this for the past several years, but the standard response from the so-called Republican "leadership" -- and I use that term loosely -- is typical of the party's totally out-of-step thinking.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "It's the votes, stupid."
Posted by: The Firewalker on March 2, 2007 08:39 AMShouldn't you be looking for an active well spoken Conservationist rather than intimating you'd settle for someone that talks a good game?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 2, 2007 09:04 AMOne more thing I'd like to add, why should we be so choosy? At this stage of the game I'd be happy to find just an Effective Speaking Republican.
(yeah I know it's a throw-away punch-line but seriously...)
Posted by: Reporterward on March 2, 2007 09:17 AMThe environmental movement, through misinformation, misdirection, and (give credit) good political instincts have owned the issue for over 30 years.
The Republicans need to redirect the debate back to clean water, clean air, and natural beauty - and away from the rabid ludite fringe ideas now infecting state and national policy.
The American people don't want to live in the stone age ideal that is the ultimate goal of the people now winning the debate, but neither do they want their children breathing foul air.
I am not sure the Republican party can rise to this issue. The libertarian wing of the party wants to dismantle the chokehold of the regulators, the religious wing is too occupied with gay marraige and state interference in their rights to freely practice their beliefs, and the business wing too focused on making money.
With no single wing of the party seemingly able to get its minds off immediate needs, I don't see them finding common ground on an issue where they won't get much immediate return.
Switching sides on global warming won't help. That will only be seen (and rightly so) as capitulation to the Gorbots.
Most people are more concerned today about their jobs, their homes and the commute to work each day than about what the climate will be (with or without GW) in 50 or 100 years.
We all know that those jobs, homes and commutes can be better accommodated than is done in the current regulatory world.
I would recommend that the Republican party focus on these issues.
Posted by: deadwood on March 2, 2007 09:19 AMFirst, we need to put the highest priority on ending our dependence on foreign oil. Our national security gives this a special priority in any energy policy. If we are going to use oil, it is preferable that we use domestic oil.
We have far, far more oil available to us then would be implied by the far left who claim concern for the environment. And the anti-business, anti-automobile, anti-free market approach of the far left leads only to a dead end. For example, those in the anti-automobile crowd oppose any effort to increase our use of domestic oil.
Looking ahead to the far, far future, we need to be comprehensive and open-minded in our policies. We need to create a "Manhattan Project" for energy, utilizing science, technology, and industry - utilizing American creativity - to develop the alternate sources of energy for the future.
We must be open to the possibilities afforded by all sources of energy - including coal and nuclear.
Some people say that coal is dirty, and nuclear is unsafe. But we should not assume that will be true in the future.
American ingenuity, creativity, and entrepreneurship can overcome the obstacles and discover the solutions of the future. We can make hydroelectric even more productive, we can make wind and solar more practical and inexpensive, we can make coal clean, and we can make nuclear safe.
Above all, we must place energy policy within a national security context. This is in contrast to the Democratic Party and liberal elite, who want to place energy policy under the umbrella of global warming paranoia, heavy government intervention and coercion, and burdensome tax increases.
But energy policy must be placed in the overall context of national security and winning the war against Islamic fascism. We need to persuade the American people of the urgency of ending our dependence on foreign oil. If we don't do that job of persuasion, the effort won't succeed. We need to stress the reality of the national security aspect of this issue. Every time a politician refers to a "so-called threat," a "so-called war," "so-called terrorism," the rationale for a successful energy independence policy is undermined.
I've also placed on the public blog some ideas of Newt Gingrich and Toby Nixon which I believe are thought-provoking and worthy of consideration.
See:
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/02/without_sounding_like_democrat.html
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/02/without_sounding_like_democrat_1.html
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/03/without_sounding_like_democrat_2.html
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/03/without_sounding_like_democrat_3.html
Evans is a tool who can go rot.
Posted by: Orotund on March 2, 2007 09:41 AMIf I had lived in California last year, I would have voted for Scwhwarzenneger without giving it a second thought. Why don't you guys give us some pragmatic Republicans to consider other than Ralph Munro and Sam Reed (the only Republicans I've voted for in this state).
Posted by: Bill L on March 2, 2007 09:49 AMWell Bill I was born and raised in Calif. If you think the gov is going to help that state, just keep watching. They have a huge bill coming even before they even start their State run health care program.
My old state is going broke.
Arnold is NO-Conserv
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 2, 2007 10:00 AMAs already pointed out, it is the rare occurrence that green positions by Republicans are either recognized or rewarded by these organizations, since their goal is to keep their allies in power... and by allies, I mean democrats.
The people of this state will not vote Republican because we embrace the socialist agenda of the Sierra Club, Earth First! (We'll log the other planets later) or PETA.
The best case study for political motivation was the 04 Carlson-Pridemore senate race.
Carlson had carried the WEA's water like Gunga Din since he set foot in the legislature.
So, what happens when the WEA smells democrat takeover of the Senate?
Like the scum they are, they dump Carlson like a bad habit... his years of loyalty, the fact that he was a retired teacher with 30 years service notwithstanding... and they endorsed Pridemore, who went on to win by about 1 percent.
The enviro "movement" is no different. Environmental issues are obviously close to Eric's heart, but they are a waste of GOP time and effort in the real world.
As always, there's no reason for people to vote for faux-democrats when they can get the real thing.
Posted by: Hinton on March 2, 2007 12:25 PMI'm not saying that the GOP (or anyone) should simply accept the argument that warming trends in global climate are predominantly due to human activity. I believe there is basis for healthy debate on that particular assertion.
It is foolish, however, to present a stance that the environmental impact of human activity doesn't matter. It does.
If conservatives in general - and Republicans in particular - are to lead on the important issues of clean air, clean water and sensible energy consumption, we need to simply acknowledge the reality of global climate change. Just admit it is happening, admit that it is possible human activity could be affecting it, and move beyond THAT debate. That debate is not helpful.
What IS helpful is getting out front in arguing that clean air, clean water and sensible energy use are important - even critical - issues. What IS helpful is promoting initiatives and dialogs that gradually will lead us to safer, cleaner energy sources - for our health and that of our kids, for our economy, and for our national security.
Fossil fuels are here, they'll be here tomorrow, and they'll be here when my seven-year old is seventy. But there is no one that can suggest continuing to belch smog and car exhaust into the atmosphere, or dumping known toxins into the water suppy are good things. They just aren't.
If Republicans really want to lead, they'll do what I think Republicans can do very well - present a reasonable path toward a cleaner, more energy independent future that acknowledges reality.
One part of that reality is that there really IS a problem - and it isn't going away by itself. We can't continue to rely heavily on energy consumption patterns and sources that we know are polluting the environment. This is one part of the reality that some on the right don't want to acknowledge. Another part is that we aren't going to make the shift to "alternative" energy sources and technologies quickly, cheaply or easily. Manufacturing plants, automobiles, electrical power producers, etc., are all heavily invested in fossil fuel technologies - and will be for years to come. This is where the left often fails.
That's OK, but we can do better. We should do better. Republican leadership should be out in front on this, but so should those of us who aren't in Olympia or DC. The President and other party leaders have proposed sensible motion toward a cleaner, more sustainable environment. But those of us at the grass roots need to be vocal on the issue. We need our neighbors, friends and co-workers to see that "Republican" and "sustainable environment" are not mutually exclusive ideas.
The national and state GOP nearly always fail in the PR department. It never ceases to amaze me how smart, capable people, many of whom are among the best policy thinkers in the world, can completely fail to articulate a moderate message in way that will appeal to a broad audience. Add to that, silly nonsense like Stefan Sharkansky's persistance in pointing to each and every snowflake as "evidence" there is no warming trend in the overall global climate change. It is this type of foolishness that actually puts the debate into the hands of the Al Gore/Ron Sims left and it makes it hard to have moderate, meaningful discussion.
Eric brings up an important point about an important topic. Perhaps it isn't a particular elected official, or high-profile party strategist that needs to be THE green-speaking Republican. Perhaps it is the bloggers, the precinct committee officers, and the average Republican moms, dads, friends and neighbors that need to become that voice.
The remaining Deliverance Wing folks run your show now.
Posted by: Jim on March 2, 2007 03:04 PMhint: green is not the issue. green is a joke on the blogs. It's scifi.
In a world of nuclear threats and more slavery than ever before, green is not the issue.
The GOP would be the most effective on the issue of environmentalism not just by talking about the issues, but by actually having groups that worked on them. If they were good conservative groups, we wouldn't have to worry about backstabbing, and they could still get the most important environmental credentials of all, accomplishing something! Which might play better with voters than just politicians with rhetoric.
Posted by: Gary on March 2, 2007 04:08 PMThe elephants here are India and China. Their thirst for fossil-fuels will outstrip ours within the next decade or two, especially as "communist" China's middle class (how can a communist country have a middle class?) acquires cars and other power hungry stuff. So not only will they be polluting more (us left coasters are downwind, remember) but the demand is already driving prices higher. Let's incentivize innovation.
Posted by: John Young on March 3, 2007 02:03 AMMark Musser
Building Industry Assocation of Washington
James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, and Paul Weyrich have all served notice on the National Association of Evangelicals to knock off all this talk about doing something about climate change.
(The Rev Richard Cizik had the audacity to speak out on weird stuff like climate change and human rights.)
They (the 4 fellers named above) mean to stick with their important issues like abortion and homosexuality.
This is why the Deliverance wing of your party will prevent any sensible environmental policy statements from any G.O.P. candidate.
Posted by: Jim on March 3, 2007 09:26 PMGary at 22 makes a good point. Fusion is definitely part of the answer in the future. And, it would not have the waste or, as currently envisioned, the potential safety issues of nuclear fission.
You guys should listen to Brian White at 15. If there were any Republicans who followed this school of thought, they might actually have a chance of getting elected statewide or on the west side of the Cascades.
Posted by: Bill L on March 3, 2007 11:11 PMMichael Medved is very articulate and clear thinking. He could put forth the conservative case for conservation, not environmentalism. I am sure he has done it on his radio show.
Posted by: Ron Hebron on March 4, 2007 03:59 PMExcerpts from a page one story in this morning's New York Times:
Complete article available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"With plenty of oil still left in familiar locations, forecasts that the world's reserves are drying out have given way to predictions that more oil can be found than ever before."
Quoting Daniel Yergin, author of a Pulitzer Prize for his history of oil: "It's the fifth time to my count that we've gone through a period when it seemed the end of oil was near and people were talking about the exhaustion of resources..... Back then [in the 1880s, 1920s, 1950s, and 1970s] we were going to fly off the oil mountain. Instead we had a boom and oil went to $10 instead of $100."
Quoting Chevron engineer Jeff Hatlen: ""That's why peak oil is a moving target. Oil is always a function of price and technology."
Complete article available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin