HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 16, 2003 I had been having a hard time putting my thoughts in order for a piece about the environment until I read Matthew Stensrud’s most offering from June 11. I take it from a few other responses to other pieces he has written that I am stepping into an on going dialogue with Mr. Stensrud and so, I will to make this even handed and, even more importantly, interesting. I also believe that the “environment is one of the most important things in our entire world”. In fact, I believe that the environment and all the myriad issues that follow from it will have a transforming effect on the Republican Party in the not too distant future. Perhaps that is wishful thinking. Those of you predisposed to assume that all conservatives are anti-environment (including Mr. Stensrud) are probably already dubious of this proposition. I will even concede that a large part of Mr. Stensrud’s critique is accurate. The Republican Party has basically ceded the environmental issue to the liberal interest groups that care most about it over the last twenty-five years. That seems to be beyond dispute. The real question is why? My answer is fairly simple and pretty depressing: most Republicans and especially conservatives aren’t really that interested in environmental issues. It’s not a matter of being uncaring or against issues that affect the environment. Let’s get one thing straight- Republicans are not out to dirty the water, cut down all of the trees or pollute the air. It’s just that that seems so preposterous to those of us on the right that refuting those charges seems like lowering ourselves to a level that is beneath us. The problem, however, has degenerated beyond that. The other primary problem with environmental issues today is that because conservatives have ceded the court of public opinion, and hence, common sense solutions to many of these problems, the inmates on the liberal left have taken over the asylum. Environmental policy in this country (and the rest of the world) is now defined by a radical leftist agenda that brokers no criticism or moderation. These people take it so seriously that any attempt to refute their claims or question their data is seen not only as a smear campaign, but also automatically makes you anti- environment. The fact of the matter is, you can have common sense, economically viable solutions to many of the world’s pressing environmental problems but moderates on both sides need to get engaged. That is why I believe that the Environment is going to be the big issue for Republicans in the next twenty-five years. There is a generation of young conservatives coming up now that understands that we need to change the way we do things in this country when it comes to land use, renewable energy sources, hydrogen fuel sources, cleaner water and air quality. I believe that the Democrats have over played their hand to the extent that they have also ceded the debate to the radicals among us. Groups like the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Federation are driving the agenda on environmental issues in dangerous directions. Some of these are reflected in the policy issues Mr. Stensrud mentions. Most of their proposals are based on faulty science, a belief that the United States is the biggest threat to the planet’s health, and a strange reliance on wealth redistribution as a remedy for all of the world’s problems. Yes, the planet is dirty. No, we do not need train wrecks like the Kyoto Treaty to clean it up. I wont attempt a point-by-point refutation of Mr. Stensrud’s article here but there are a few points to be made. The first quibble is with the sourcing and wording of the points made. Clearly biased and clearly one-sided. That isn’t to say the actual data in all cases is incorrect but it does impact the case. The second is this. Quite a bit of the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration that are cited constitute the largest federal land grab in this country’s history. I question the premise that placing these millions of acres under federal protection and designating them as national park lands and forests will help them. We’ve seen the horrendous damage previous EPA policies have had in the West over the last ten years. As for the failures of the Bush administration, the salient points are that the EPA budget has not been cut. The percentage increase in the growth in that department’s budget has been trimmed. Only in Washington is that considered a “ cut”. The EPA report that was dismissed by the administration was based on faulty science, presented dubious conclusions, and while it did cite the dangers of global warming, it couldn’t even cite irrefutable evidence that it’s occurring. For all of the talk about global warming, we cant’ even decide if it’s good or bad. A recent story by Richard Stenger on CNN.com cites a recent Science Magazine report that states that the earth is getting greener due to climate changes. The study states that the climate changes have produced “changes tat have boosted growth ingredients in regions where they might otherwise have been scarce”. At the end of the day, I believe that environmental issues will play a dominant role in the political debates in this country in the next twenty-five years but without a search for common ground and common sense solutions to these issues the problems will never get solved. I believe the next generation of Republicans is well situated to step up and make this issue the defining issue of the Republican Party in the 21st century. ------------ Email Jamie Moulthrop: jmoulthrop@comcast.net Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
