Not trying to play into stereotype, but my guess is that most people on Grist aren't regular readers of National Review. I am. And the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Cato Unbound, Reason, and many other right-leaning publications. I often disagree with what they say, but as I tell my students, understanding those you disagree with is more important than understanding those whose opinions you share.
Also, every so often you come across an article like this, and you realize that sound environmental policy shouldn't be a left-right issue. The things most damaging to the environment are actually anti-market distortions such as subsidies and the incorrect pricing of polluting activities.
If environmentalists can develop a strong grasp of these fundamental economic principles they will realize that there is a huge potential bipartisan coalition just waiting to be formed that will make huge strides and can accomplish most of their goals.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:33 pm
27 Feb 2007
Adler finally puts his cards on the table toward the end:A list of specific policy proposals a conservative could endorse in good conscience would include the following: End government policies that subsidize inefficient energy and resource use; End government programs that encourage excess energy use and subsidize vulnerable development; Encourage innovation by removing barriers to technological development and deployment; Replace market-distorting subsidies with prizes for specific types of major innovations; Create international institutions that can facilitate technology proliferation to encourage less carbon-intensive economic development in poorer nations. More controversially, it may be time to consider replacing some taxes on income and wealth generation with taxes on energy use or emissions from fossil fuels. So long as such a tax shift does not increase the overall tax burden on the economy -- and this is an essential condition -- it could encourage innovation and conservation without costly mandates or wasteful subsidies.Two points: first, I would more or less endorse this agenda, with some addenda (like that rhyming?), but I don't think it would be sufficient to "accomplish most of our goals." I would want to do additional things, which involve public investment and so would be anathema to Adler.
Second, if you think the union of green-leaning libertarians and libertarian-leaning greens is "a huge potential bipartisan coalition," you're crazy for cocoa puffs. In practice, liberals and conservatives disagree about a lot, but they all want to suck on the public teat. Libertarians of any stripe are a tiny and politically insignificant minority.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:51 pm
27 Feb 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:48 pm
27 Feb 2007
NR's cartoonist Michael Ramirez is brilliant, really terrificly talented. Too bad he is also profoundly morally confused. As a work of propagandist art, his December cartoon, with the blonde in very short cut-offs and the Obama T-shirt, is a masterpiece.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:01 pm
27 Feb 2007
They aren't always "freemarketeerian" enough for you?
For instance:
Why not sell adspace on the moon? The only way to protect the Moon environment is to monetize it, right?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:57 pm
27 Feb 2007
David- It really amazes me how you can't seem to ever post a comment on anything I write without noting how I'm condescending, pompous, or some other flattering description when I simply try to state my opinions. You, on the other hand, no matter how bold the statements you make are obviously humble, reasonable, and balanced. It's almost become comical. Newsflash: I don't think you're setting a very good example here. I think that's about the strongest think I've ever said with respect to you, but I'm confident you'll find a way to twist it around and try to score some more points. Whatever. You're the boss.
As for the others, okay, if you think this article is nothing more than rightwing doublespeak or that I'm somehow not being genuine with the point I'm trying to get across fine, I just don't see why. I think a sober reading of the facts shows that a. market distortions are the #1 problem facing the environment and b. speaking in this language is very appealing to those on the right. If you want to view them as the enemy that's your choice, but it doesn't seem very constructive to me.
Could maybe one day on Grist the comments not play into all of the stereotypes of environmentalists? Can maybe once people just try to examine the arguments and not turn this is into an ideological issue in which they feel compelled to stake out a righteous positions? Maybe I'm asking too much, maybe that's what blogs are about. Maybe blog commenters are a self-selected group. But sometimes the discussions are pretty substantive, which is why I keep posting, but sometimes they are quite discouraging.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:00 am
28 Feb 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:41 am
28 Feb 2007
Yep, kill EVERY messenger and the message will never arrive is their strategy. I see a HUGE parallel between forest management deniers and climate change deniers. Forget the facts, let's get on with the good story.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:50 am
28 Feb 2007
The best liberal ideas (like diversity and anti-discrimination--think Colin Powell and Condi Rice) continue to be absorbed by conservatives, and vice versa.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:59 am
28 Feb 2007
Look at the real political world. What are conservatives out lobbying for? Removing all subsidies and tax breaks? No. They're lobbying to defend subsidies and tax breaks to dirty industries and to get more subsidies and tax breaks for nuclear, ethanol, hydrogen, etc.
Carl Pope and whatsisname from the Cato Institute famously agreed a long time ago that removing all energy subsidies is a good idea. I didn't see any broadbase coalition emerge from that.
It may be possible to rally a decent sized coalition around something like a carbon tax. But the full libertarian meal Adler describes sounds a long way off to me. Beware the pundit's fallacy.
www.grist.org
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 1:16 am
28 Feb 2007
John Maynard Keynes:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than it is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.
I think we've been living under the views of the Austrian school economists since the 80's. And they still dominate the zeitgeist we live in:
Reagan and his British soul mate, former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, have talked about the political loneliness of free-market optimists post-World War II. Both drew sustenance from the writings of an Austrian economist and philosopher named Friedrich August von Hayek, who maintained that freedom -- to own property, to think and speak freely, to live under the rule of law -- was essential to economic progress. Centrally controlled states could not compete over the long term with free markets, Hayek taught.
Both leaders applied this theory first inside their own conservative movements. Once, during the 1970s, Thatcher slammed a copy of Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" onto a table at a Conservative Party conference and declared, "This is what we believe."
At some point, us greenie non-libertarians should make it more clear what we believe, economically speaking. There are more theories of economics than the libertarian Austrian school. For instance there are the institutionalists (Veblen, Galbraith) who seem to be almost forgotten these days. And then there are the more technocratic Keynesians (Keynes figures prominently in libertarian bad dreams).
I don't know about a coalition, but I agree that understanding free market philosophies can be useful, both in terms of finding common ground and establishing what our philosophical differences are...
Samuel Adams, 1776:
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms."
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:16 am
28 Feb 2007
Conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, red and blue, evangelists and environmentalists, old and young, rich and poor,... there is a growing union against a common threat. Such gives much hope for a global energy transition. The gap is between those that do not care about the future and those that do. We do not hear much from those that do not care, because they do not care.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:11 am
28 Feb 2007
In the same time, David might be right regarding a coalition of relatively minor sections of the overall population, but the fact that some political 'leaders' or cronies or what have you are starting to notice the overall conversation is GREAT! I thank JS for posting this, and hope to see more sanity from Review peoples.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:14 am
28 Feb 2007
Are Libertarians prepared to push their ENTIRE program? I attended a meeting several years ago to learn more about the Libertarian Party and I must say I was intrigued by what they had to offer.
One basic Libertarian principle presented was:
One is free to do whatever one wants with or on their property, which extends from the core of the planet to the edge of the atmosphere, AS LONG AS ONE DOES NOT TRESPASS ON ANOTHER'S PROPERTY. Trespassing include actions like dumping chemicals (hazardous or benign) in their air or water and flying over thier home. Thus, the ingenius Libertarian pointed out that there would be absolutle no pollution permitted under a Libertarian government. For example, we would be permitted to sue someone for trespassing and collect compensation if they drove past our home in a car emitting anything more than carbon dioxide and water. Or, the air and water leaving an industrial or agricultural site would would have to be as clean as the air and water entering the site.
This would be GREAT!
But I think most Libertarians and similar groups advocate -- and their followers only hear -- the "you are free to do whatever you want with your property" part. They do not advocate or hear about the personal responsibiity that goes with it.
If economists can design a system where ALL COSTS are internalized, where the air and water leaving one's property is as clean as when it entered the property, and there are provisions for protecting animals and plants that are distributed in a patchwork fashion or migrate, but essential for the integrity of the biosphere, I'll be all for it.
Conservatives and freemarketeers, if they want to walk the talk, should be all for it. But it seems they really just want to be free to dump their problems on everyone else.
Forward!
Permalink
Tod Posted 2:35 am
28 Feb 2007
"Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar
http://www.todbrilliant.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:48 am
28 Feb 2007
<<
As for the others, okay, if you think this article is nothing more than rightwing doublespeak or that I'm somehow not being genuine with the point I'm trying to get across fine, I just don't see why.
>>
Well, it is unclear whom you are addressing in this comment. Speaking for myself, I think you are perfectly genuine. Same with Adler and Sanford: I do not accuse them of "doublespeak" at all, I readily assume they are writing in a perfectly straightforward manner, and that they have an automatic receptive readership. That is why this stroll through National Review was so terrifying.
<<
I think a sober reading of the facts shows that a. market distortions are the #1 problem facing the environment ...
>>
I have no idea what that means.
<<
... and b. speaking in this language is very appealing to those on the right.
>>
Ditto.
<<
If you want to view them as the enemy that's your choice, but it doesn't seem very constructive to me.
>>
No, they themselves are not "the enemy," and I for my part never said that that is what they are.
But as for that questionable brackish lake from which they drink: we might ask, Who is it who keeps it filled?
As for what is or is not constructive, it might be useful to get that out simply and straight-away. What exactly do you think you are building? Are you assuming that you have a bunch of us behind you, with hammers and nails and saws and screw-drivers? If so, with what justification? What is your criterion for what is or is not constructive?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 2:53 am
28 Feb 2007
But we're still smarting from libertarians being holdout denialists. So some suspicion should not come as a surprise...
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 3:18 am
28 Feb 2007
Adler's list of 'specific policy proposals' seems to be generally good, and with some additions could be an effective approach.
Using to much energy is inefficient. Polluting water systems hurts everyone. Overfishing results in long term welfare losses. Subsidising fossil fuels - duh. The economic implications of bad environmental policies are clear.
The environment is no longer about right-left, no longer about saving one endangered cute fuzzy animal versus drilling a big nasty oil well... it's about the future of our society, and a growing number of leaders that would have been traditionally seen as environmental villains are realizing this.
The environmental movement has to start working with more diverse interests to get good policies in place. It's not selling out to engage in a dialogue, it's the only way to get things done.
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 3:32 am
28 Feb 2007
I think a sober reading of the facts shows that a. market distortions are the #1 problem facing the environment ...
>>
I have no idea what that means.
<<
... and b. speaking in this language is very appealing to those on the right.
Ditto
I'm not an expert but maybe my layman's understanding will help.
A 'market distortion' is something that makes the whole supply/demand equilibrium somehow inefficient.
Typically, in terms of the environment, this takes the form of an 'externality'. For example, when we burn fossil fuels, the 'cost' of the emissions in terms of climate change is not included in the cost of the fuel. So, we burn more than we should.
Subsidies also cause distortions, because they artificially lower the price of say, fossil fuels or corn ethanol, also resulting in excess consumption.
What I think Jason is saying is that removing these subsidies, and placing an appropriate price on things like greenhouse gas emissions, would be the most effective environmental policy.
For (b.), if you frame the environmental debate in terms of market inefficiency, and economic results, you will be more able to convince those that are usually not interested in green policies because they seem to contradict their free-market goals. In reality, the market and the environment, with some smart policies, are perfectly compatible.
We do live in a capitalist society/world. So unless we want to or are able to overhaul that completely, the system itself may be the best way to protect the environment.
People often assume economists are concerned with money, but that isn't the case. Economists are generally concerned with 'welfare', which includes money, but also intangibles like the environment, and happiness. Placing a number value on the environment just makes it possible to measure it against our current system for value, money.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:25 am
28 Feb 2007
Libertarianism is supported by intellectuals; out in the real world, virtually every constituency wants government to do something for them. Sure, you, me, and GreenEngineer agree on it. But we, and people like us, will never represent a "huge" political coalition. Surely this isn't news to you.
You are right about Libertarianism as a coherent intellectual movement, or as a political party. Not only are they marginal, but the types of people that the movement attracts (geeky intellectuals) virtually assures that they will stay that way.
However, a great deal of libertarian economic philosophy has made its way into the mainstream, and into the rhetoric of the Right. Or hadn't you noticed?
If we want to reach Them (the Right, the Red States, whatever you want to call them) and convince them to support necessary changes, then we need to speak their language. That is what the article is doing, that's what the Mustache is doing, and that's what Jason is suggesting we should be doing. It's not about uniting the fringe greens and the fringe libertarians -- that leaves you still on the fringe. It's about framing the environment as a value that is relevant to all of us.
Wiscidea said:
Are Libertarians prepared to push their ENTIRE program? ... But I think most Libertarians and similar groups advocate -- and their followers only hear -- the "you are free to do whatever you want with your property" part. They do not advocate or hear about the personal responsibiity that goes with it.
This is unfortunately true in my experience of Libertarians (speaking as someone who grew up in the party). There are exceptions, such as John Mackey, but he got alot of grief when he spoke at the national convention about the need for "conscious capitalism" and "corporate responsibility". This disconnect is totally hypocritical, but totally common.
My best guess is that this disconnect arises from a combination of at least two thing:
Libertarianism attracts individualists, iconoclasts and malcontents. Many of these people are really just looking for a justification to do whatever they damn well please. They are living in a mythical frontier America that may have existed in the past, but is long gone.
Libertarianism attracts intellectuals and geeks, people who's lives, jobs, and personal inclinations tend not to put them in direct contact with nature very often at all. If one is raised, educated, and acculturated in a city, it's actually possible to go through life believing that the state of the natural world has no direct impact on human welfare. It sounds absurd, but it's quite common. And, really, where are most city-dwelling people going to learn about the interconnectedness of nature? It's something that cannot be proven systematically; it can only be learned from observation and experience. If your personal experience does not include nature, then where would you learn?
As a side note, I think that a major and important challenge to bringing people around to a green perspective is figuring out how to take someone with little experience of the natural world and demonstrate to them, quickly and conclusively, that John Muir was right: everything is in fact hitched to everything else. Once someone internalizes that idea, good environmental practice becomes a matter of self-interest.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:37 am
28 Feb 2007
Meanwhile, please be not too rhetorically swift and ruthless with the animals. They count, you know.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 5:33 am
28 Feb 2007
Heritage describes itself as a think tank, a term originally applied to nonpolitical institutions like the RAND Corporation. Whether it is really appropriate for organizations like Heritage depends on what you mean by the word "think." Most of Washington's so-called think tanks don't have to ponder the issues -- they already know the answers. The Heritage mission statement makes no bones about it: the institution's purpose is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies." Can you imagine any circumstances under which Heritage researchers might recommend a tax increase, or a new environmental regulation? I didn't think so.
Since the policy recommendations that come out of Heritage, or the Cato Institute, or even the American Enterprise Institute are so predictable, what purpose do these organizations serve? Good question.
The important think tanks are all very much institutions of the right. Jon Corzine notwithstanding, left- wing multimillionaires are not exactly the norm. So liberal think tanks don't have anything like the resources or the influence of their right-wing counterparts. Some might cite the Brookings Institution as an exception -- but Brookings isn't liberal the way the conservative think tanks are conservative. Put it this way: Even A.E.I., the most moderate of the big right-wing think tanks, lists Newt Gingrich among its "scholars."
...The think tanks were places where neoconservative intellectuals could think the unthinkable and say the unsayable. They provided a new element in the national dialogue, to such an extent that Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously declared that "the Republicans have become the party of ideas." And of course the think tanks provided the intellectual shock troops for the Reagan revolution.
But that was a long time ago. Neoconservative ideas are no longer radical; they have become trite.
That was Kruman writing back in 2000. To bring this up to date, check this recent post out at Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/01/19/connecting-the-dots-2 ...
It seems like we should be able to reach for something earlier than the one-dimensional Reagan/neoconservative thinking... I think we've been culture-warred and media'ed into thinking that this is all there is. But there should be a concerted effort to get out of its more spurious aspects...
Of course, part of that would be understanding the status quo, which would mean understanding libertarian economics and libertarian ways of thinking. Not because we should adopt them wholesale, but because they have formed the dominant part of the national economic conversation. And although they've been oversold, they've had some success. Hayek gets credit where it's due, but we should address his blind spots, which have been glaring recently...
I think this Bill Clinton speech is on the right track:
Now, this sort of politics -- striving for the common good -- for me, stands in stark contrast to both the political and governing philosophy of the leadership in Washington today and for the last six years. The more ideological, right-wing element of the Republican party has been building strength partly in reaction to things that happened 40 years ago, Barry Goldwater's defeat to what they saw as the excesses of the '60s. It got a lot of legs when President Reagan was elected. But this is the first time when on a consistent basis the most conservative, most ideological wing of the Republican party has had both the executive and the legislative branch with a very distinct governing philosophy and a very distinct political philosophy, where us common good folks favor equal opportunity and empowerment, they believe the country is best served by the maximum concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the right people -- "right" in both senses. (Laughter.)
We believe in mutual responsibility. They believe that in large measure people make or break their own lives, and you're on your own.
I think Clinton is right that this way of thinking is noxious and needs to be confronted, which is where the rest of us can come in.
(Sorry, this comment is a bit too long. Jason is the blogger, I'm just along for the ride...)
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 5:58 am
28 Feb 2007
Back in 1978 [Irving] Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.
Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."
"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."
Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/080505.html
(OK, now I'll stop...)
Permalink
karenc Posted 6:52 am
28 Feb 2007
An ounce of practice is worth twenty thousand tons of big talk. -Vivekananda
Permalink
naturescene Posted 7:16 am
28 Feb 2007
NEWS FLASH: A hefty number of people in America have libertarian leanings. They are not members of the Libertarian Party (how libertarian is it to have an organized party?). Please stop confusing the two. The LP is stubborn, most people with libertarian leanings are not. When you lump them together you start to lose those that don't associate with the LP.
Want an interesting view as to why Democrats won the elections recently? libertarians. Small l. Those voters that had always thought the Republicans were the lesser of the two evils finally grew some balls and voted against the party that has payed lip service to their principles but stabbed them in the back repeatedly.
When certain jackasses start interchanging libertarian and conservative, they show how ignorant they are. They also come off as as stubborn as the jerks that run the LP. Those of us left with libertarian leanings are ignored, but we're the silent majority. If you don't give us a reason to listen to you and work with you, we won't. Voters with libertarian principles helped sway the recent elections -- read that, most people are willing to compromise -- but compromise and working together is a two-way process.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 7:25 am
28 Feb 2007
Just a few off the top of the head:
Regulating through markets. You need government to lay the framework - the rules of the game - but after that government needs to step back and let the market do what it does best. Cap n' Trade. (Captain Trade?)
Raise the tax on gas. BUT only if you lower the tax on capital and wealth. Stop taxing people for making money and start taxing them for making pollution. Most Libertarians hate the word "tax" but most of us small-l libertarians understand the political realities of taxes.
Now where do the compromises need to be made on the green side of things?
Biggest one I can think of is pricing ecosystem services. Not arbitrarily, but through better definitions of property rights that would allow markets for these services to emerge.
Conservation and mitigation banking. Granted this needs to be done within guidelines so that it can be successful.
Permalink
Natural Patriot Posted 7:28 am
28 Feb 2007
Taking an optimistic view of this, one hopes that the sheer number and diversity of people spawning ideas about solving these colossal problems will increase the possibility that a few (or many, by the silver buckshot analogy) effective solutions will emerge, and pretty darn soon.
It's worth listening to those on the right that take the environment seriously and are making reasoned arguments about how to move forward (as opposed to the nutjobs on both sides of the aisle),even if they're dead wrong -- in which case we should explain why, as Grist is quite effective at doing. A good idea should be judged on its merits, not on whether its source is someone we find ideologically repugnant, or even on the other ideas surrounding it.
I'm reminded of hearing Paul Begala (probably quoting someone else) distinguish commentary from journalism thus:
"People use commentary the way a drunk uses a lightpost -- for support, not illumination."
I generally find Grist illuminating (and, yes, also supportive of my views, to be truthful). But it can sound a bit like an echo chamber sometimes.
The Natural Patriot
In order to fomr a more perfect union
Permalink
randino Posted 8:08 am
28 Feb 2007
That caveat stated, let me say I would welcome a conservative school of conservation (you say environmentalism, I say conservation!). I frequent a message board where canoeists and kayakers of the left and right fight it out on the issues of the day. I have actually referred my opponents to Republicans for Environmental Protection, and celebrated their joining. I have stated on this blog my motto: "thou shalt not speak ill, of another environmentalist."
An effective environmental movement will have to be a diverse environmental movement, without compromising the various currents and their positions.
The conservative conservationists will have a rough row to hoe. Since 1980 the right has been on a jihad against the environment. This is fueled by their aversion to big government regulation, but is also fueled by where they get their funding, and by potent grass roots movements that made the term environmentalist, second only to liberal as a curse word. You also have to realize that just because conservatives seem to be on the losing side on issues like global warming, it will not make them more compliant. I think it will just fuel the dead enders, to the detriment of the entire conservative tradition. Right now, one of the criteria for being a politically correct conservative is to resist all effort to do anything about global warming. But, that is a fight that will have to be fought within conservaive ranks.
Lots of luck is my wish.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 8:11 am
28 Feb 2007
Exactly true, people tend to push the conversation towards what they want to talk about and how they want to view it, rather than a serious debate.
Good post though Jason, unfortunate that the issue of using the market to protect the environment somehow became about libertarianism.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:22 am
28 Feb 2007
What are the possibilities for using "the market" or "market mechanisms" to ameliorate environmental problems?
What common ground can we green thinkers find with conservative thinkers on removing market distortions?
What real-world political support is available from the Republican party on such measures?
It's important to keep these distinct, particularly 2 and 3. I don't doubt that libertarian-leaning intellectuals like Adler would support our quest for a level energy playing field, along with some of the wonkier sorts at Cato or Heritage, and I welcome their support. But Adler isn't a Republican official. What the Republicans do in practice is far, far different than what would be indicated by conservative economic principles. Surely after that last few decades that's become clear. That's why I question Jason's "huge political coalition." I don't see -- and haven't heard any evidence on this thread for -- the hugeness.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:24 am
28 Feb 2007
What real-world political support is available from the Republican party's traditional constituency on such measures?
I don't expect much if any support from the GOP itself. Frankly, I would look at such support, if offered, askance. I'd be asking myself when they were going to stick the knife in. But the issue, I think, is about communicating with the GOP's base of support. Not the extreme right-wingers, not the radical Christians, but the everyday red-state constituency. That's where free-market environmentalist ideas can get some useful traction.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:00 am
28 Feb 2007
Elite types (disproportionately represented on the web) tend to believe that the masses share what elites think of as centrism: liberalism and tolerance on social issues coupled with fiscal conservatism and enthusiasm for free trade.
But public polls consistently show almost precisely the inverse: the great unwashed masses are conservative on social issues, protectionist on trade, and liberal on gov't spending.
In other words, the kind of free-trade, free-market, free-thinking libertarianism that's so popular among intellectuals has virtually no genuine constituency in the hinterlands.
You'd probably like to see some of those polls, but I'm just about to get on a bus to go home. Maybe I'll try to dig some out tonight.
www.grist.org
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 10:14 am
28 Feb 2007
You may be right. Certainly you've spent more time with polls than I have. On the other hand, what you say implies that the free market rhetoric that the Republicans have been employing increasingly in the last two decades has nothing to do with their political success. I have a hard time believing that.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 10:14 am
28 Feb 2007
Here are some environmental market mechanisms aside from taxes (these provide incentives, taxes offer punishment):
water quality trading schemes such as nutrient/sediment trading to help control nonpoint source pollution
cap n' trade on air emissions
transferrable quotas for fisheries
the use of conservation easements and tradable development rights to protect land and habitat
These are just some of the possibilities.
Issue 2: What common ground can be found for removal of subsidies among green and conservative thinkers?
That's a tough one if you're talking about getting politicians on board. Subsidies line their pockets with money from oil, agriculture, and auto industries.
In the short run, nothing is going to change the politicians. You have to keep hammering the subsidies=bad to their contituents - the ones that vote for them, not the ones that pour money on them once they've been elected. It's a tough job, but it's a job I don't see anyone working on. Where are the protests? Where are the movies about the damage that subsidies do?
Issue 3: Shouldn't the question be what real-world support is available from Republicans and/or Democrats.
Last time I checked, the Dems had control, and I still don't see any of these issues about market environmentalism or subsidy removal being brought up. Not all Democrats are environmentalists, not all Republicans are anti-environment.
I'm no soothsayer, but I'd say that support from the conservatives is coming. For one, I think we're about to find out that the religious right is losing their control of the Republican Party. They had their chance to yell and scream for 8 years - most moderate Republicans are tired of it. It'll become political strategy, if the Repubs keep alienating the moderates, more and more will keep voting for Democrats.
Second, I think it has to be sold differently to conservatives. Don't try to sell impending ecological doom. Don't even sell the words "environmentalist" or "conservationist". Start campaigns like "Save the Natural Beauty of America."
It has to be about tradition and heritage, that's what conservatives love. Remind them that the heritage of America is independence and natural beauty.
Permalink
JimDiPeso Posted 11:22 am
28 Feb 2007
As the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, (thank you, Randy Cunningham, for the nice plug), I find this discussion invigorating and welcome.
We tell our Republican friends that it's past time for GOP leaders to rediscover the older conservative traditions that demand stewardship as the present generation's obligation to its descendants. One of the reasons that Republicans took a pasting last November was that voters correctly saw many of them for what they were - self-aggrandizing machine politicians. These pols called themselves conservatives and were described as such in the media, but they were obtuse to the true meaning of conservatism. (Read Rod Dreher's book "Crunchy Cons" for a very readable exploration of these ideas.)
Likewise, environmentalists who have put all their political eggs in the donkey's basket would be smart to engage respectfully with conservative constituencies (e.g. evangelicals, sportsmen) and explore alternative approaches to correcting market distortions that reward waste and depletion. A movement that not so long ago was musing about its own death does not have the luxury of indulging in "not invented here" resistance to others' ideas and turning collective noses up at potential allies because they lie outside a political comfort zone.
As Jason said in his first post, the environment should not be treated as a left-right issue. Ending polarization can lead to careful consideration of potentially useful ideas that have withered outside heavily defended ideological barricades.
Permalink
Natural Patriot Posted 11:49 am
28 Feb 2007
But maybe we don't need a huge coalition with centrist libertarians (whether small or large L) and so forth. All that's needed is the proverbial swing voters. After all, George Bush became leader of the free world in 2000 because of only a few thousand votes (no wait, Al Gore was elected! Oh never mind). If enough centrist Republicans come to believe that their leaders are out to lunch on climate change -- which would not be a hard conclusion to reach -- they may just pull the lever in the opposite direction. And if the candidates are as evenly matched as they have been for the past several years, only a few such flip-floppers (did I say that?) would be needed.
The bigger problem we face, which I don't think has been mentioned in this long thread, is that the environment is down around # 346 on voters' list of priorities after terrorism, health care, imagined child kidnappings, the "death tax", etc. etc. etc.
The Natural Patriot
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:56 am
28 Feb 2007
The Libertarian issue came up very early... see the second comment in the thread...
"While the Libertarian Party is a tiny and insignificant thing, the ideas more generally described as libertarian have alot of traction with red-state voters."
I've encounter Libertarian Party reps at their meetings and heard them on the radio and am very skeptical regarding their ability to preserve the biosphere by privatizing everything. Thus, I wanted to add my opinion to the discussion. If that makes me a "jackass" so be it. I'm pretty sure that the unwashed masses regard the Libertarian Party as a conservative organization, probably because the party generally stresses property rights more than anything else. And the Libertarian candidates running for office in Wisconsin tend to oppose a woman's right to have an abortion.
Very few people understand the meaning of small-L libertarian. This is what I was expecting when I first attended one of the local Libertarian Party meetings and was very disappointed.
I think GreenEngineers suggestion that "ideas more generally described as libertarian have alot of traction with red-state voters" suggests that the definition of libertarian varies quite a bit, depending on who uses the term, and there are a lot of "jackasses" and "stubborn jerks" you will have to educate. Small-L libertarian ideas like opposition to all censorship, opposition to laws restricting consensual behavior (like homosexuality), legalizing recreational drugs, allowing prostitution, freedom from religion, and opposition to military adventurism do not appear to be gaining traction in the red states.
From one "jackass" to another, Naturescene, it might be time to drop all vague or politically charged terms unless we are prepared to politely correct one another's use of those terms.
Forward!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 12:44 pm
28 Feb 2007
But federal spending hasn't declined under Republicans. Quite the opposite. What everyone wants is for those people's subsidies to be cut -- welfare, that is. Nobody views their own subsidies as anything but a divine right.
The problem with subsidies is that the benefits accrue to a concentrated, politically motivated constituency, while the costs are diffused across the population and often hidden. That is a recipe for a political hot potato. What politician gains from trying to wrest subsidies from, say, agribusiness? The corporations will spend millions to destroy the politicians, and most other people won't care, not that much.
Rhetoric aside, in practice virtually every constituency feels that their industry or cause or lifestyle deserves taxpayer money. I'm not a libertarian, so that general state of affairs doesn't bug me all that much, but there are particular subidies that are obviously harmful and well overdue for an overhaul. It's those we should focus on.
www.grist.org
Permalink
birdboy Posted 12:46 pm
28 Feb 2007
The real problem is that the proposed solutions to the 'market distortions' causing our environmental ills are untenable to the majority of folks on that side of the isle. If they are to pay the 'true cost' of pollution and habitat loss, then their profit margins take a dive. Just who will tell them what pollution really costs, and who will make them pay that real price? Could it be, oh, I dunno ... THE GOVERNMENT? And what will come of their belief in their right to do whatever they want on (or to) their own private property?
The sad truth is that small government and sacred property rights are incompatible with the cure for our planet's malady. Saying that a completely free market would not suffer this malady is like saying if everyone carried a gun, there'd be no killing.
Environmentalism is not intrinsicly a left/right, red/blue thing. It's more of a me/we thing. Lately, the right is all about ME.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 2:43 pm
28 Feb 2007
Global warming, Iraq, recent dysfunction in the economic system... things are not looking good for conservatives. The word hubris comes to mind.
One big mistake has been for the newer conservatives to have engaged in nasty rhetoric and personal attacks. People often will forgive and forget differences of opinion... but personal attacks are something else.
Strategically, since the power of liberals-left-environmentalists is on the rise, I don't think they should waste much time tailoring their positions to suit conservatives. Instead, energy is more usefully employed developing a new vision, building institutions, establishing networks. Anything that is useful in the libertarian toolchest (e.g. many of Jason's ideas) can be appropriated.
Increasingly, liberals-left-environmentalists can operate from a position of strength: Going after mad-dog conservatives. Engaging in dialogue with conservatives who are respectful and open-minded (the traditional conservatives of a previous era) Making sure that one doesn't give away too much in negotiations - tough love -Bart
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 8:59 pm
01 Mar 2007
http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/03/01/pretty-much-2/
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 3:52 am
02 Mar 2007
First: "[T]rading carbon emission credits and creating markets in greenhouse gases as a means of controlling global warming is not a way of saying we're so confident in the strength of the free market system that we can trust it to fix the problems it creates. No, it's a way of saying that we are frightened by the prospect of stepping outside the market system on which we depend for our national wealth, our jobs, and our sense of normalcy that we will let the logic of that system try to correct its own excesses even when we know we are just kidding ourselves."
Second: "The belief that corporate power is the unique source of our problems is not the only idol we are subject to. There is an idol even in the language we use to account for our problems. Our primary dependence on the scientific language of "environment" . . . is a way of acknowledging the superiority of the very kind or rationality that serves not only the Sierra Club but corporate capitalism as well. . . . I am not speaking here of the notorious problems associated with proving scientifically the significance of environmental destruction. My concern is with the wisdom of using as our primary weapon th rhetoric and logic of the very entities we suspect of causing our problems in the first place. . . Environmentalism seems to conclude that the best thing it can do for nature is to make a case for it, as if it were always making a summative argument before a jury with the backing of the best science."
To be effective, we need more than this. We need to go deeper in both our thinking and our use of language, the danger being, as White points out, and as I have also written on numerous occasions, that we come to believe this language and mindset ourselves. It's affirming to read articles in publications I respect that say essentially what I've been saying in slightly different language or from a different, though connected, perspective. As long as we let those who have been identified as being "the problems" determine the terms of the debate we marginalize ourselves and risk being co-opted. The argument that we need to talk their language in order to be taken seriously rings hollow to me.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:57 am
02 Mar 2007
By coincidence, a spokesman for that magazine has sent a comment, regarding a story in Orion about featured art-photographer Chris Jordan, in the "Picture Worth a Bazillion Words" thread.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:27 am
03 Mar 2007
The EPA, Clean Water, and Clean Air Act were all enacted by a Republican President.
The Montreal Protocol was enacted by a Republican President.
The major amendments to the Clean Air Act and the highly successful sulfur dioxide program was initiated and enacted by a Republican president.
During Bill Clinton's 8 years virtually no major environmental legislation was enacted (until the very end) and fuel-economy standards made zero progress and SUVS proliferated at a time of record low gas prices (i.e. the perfect time to institute a carbon tax).
The point? I'll let you decide. To be continued.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:27 am
03 Mar 2007
Unfortunately, the Republicans are now in the process of self-destructing. See, for example, David Robert's latest post on Grover Norquist's cheerleading for a do-nothing strategy in Congress.
The corruption of the Republicans, their anti-democratic policies, their personal attacks and disinformation campaigns -- all of these will not be forgotten anytime soon. I think the apparent hegemony of Republicans is hollow. They could could fall very quickly, as did the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe.
Rational people like Jason and the Libertarians may want to re-think their allegiances.
Bart
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:11 am
03 Mar 2007
Before I post a specific comment regarding this, I'd like to express my appreciation for your ability to persevere and politely tolerate the sometimes hostile responses to your posts... often by ignorant folks such as me. You appear sincerely interested in generating a productive dialogue and educating people. I hope you can continue the good fight. You present excellent information.
So...
Considering your remarks about Republican concern for the environment... perhaps this is not an issue of Democrats (liberals) having to reach out to Republicans (conservatives) -- the ones sincerely interested in protecting the natural commons, not buring through our natural capital, not subsidizing dinosaur technology, reducing our nation's dependence on foreign countries, employing diplomacy to solve problems, not projecting military power abroad unless absolutely necessary, achieving peace through strength, respecting separation of church and state, and building an America that serves as inspiration for the rest of the world -- must take the Republican Party back from the Christian fundamentalists and neo-cons. And is very important for Democrats (liberals) to show their support for these conservatives. Perhaps this is what you were trying to say, but I was too enraged by the mention of Libertarians to see the light. Sorry.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:18 am
03 Mar 2007
You wrote...
"Not trying to play into stereotype, but my guess is that most people on Grist aren't regular readers of National Review. I am. And the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Cato Unbound, Reason, and many other right-leaning publications. I often disagree with what they say, but as I tell my students, understanding those you disagree with is more important than understanding those whose opinions you share."
Once again, excellent point. And I wish to follow your suggestion as an excercise. I'll try reading one such magazine or journal and see whether it makes my brain explode. So... suppose I were going to purchase the magazine or journal this week... which would you suggest I read? You can suggest just the title and I'll get the latest issue. Or you can suggest a specific issue. I swear on my copy of "The Age Of Reason" that I will read it cover to cover.
Forward!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:56 am
03 Mar 2007
Also, I'd also highly recommend reading this speech by RFK that's posted at the Sierra Club
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/speeches/2005-09-10rf ...
It gets at the heart of what I'm talking about overall with respect to market distortions and the environment.
Finally, for any of those interested, I'm supporting Barack Obama for president and I've never voted for a Republican for national office, although I would if they adhered to true conservative principles, not this theocon belligerent nonsense that passes for "conservative" these days.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:59 am
03 Mar 2007
And I don't think anyone can accuse him of being a rightwing hack.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 12:33 pm
03 Mar 2007
As for RFK's speech, PLEASE, don't make me laugh! I thought this man knew the difference between democracy and capitalism. Sure, a free market is efficient at converting Nature into consumables, but look what it has done to our democratic 'representation'. Only money speaks above the chorus of deception and manipulation.
Pollution is NOT waste. Pollution is a shortcut, and shortcuts are always favored when investors are breathing down your back for quarterly earnings reports. Responsibility is expensive, and impedes efficiency if the goal is rapid mass production.
And please, someone explain to me how a free market teaches us to 'value' natural resources? If resources are cheap, then costs of production are low and profit is high. Does the free market encourage a fair price for labor, for wood, for anything?
Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that lots of CEO's got rich without making their neighbors rich- in fact, sometimes by making them sick. Without someone to FORCE a fair wage, responsible treatment of Nature and waste products, there will be only pollution and abuse, since that always turns the highest short-term profit. Why should my company worry about your grandchildren, when I can get rich today?
Until we see a valuation of Nature above and beyond what it can bring on the free market, we will be in the same boat, still sinking. If Nature's value is determined by the going price, we will consume ourselves and all life on Earth.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:11 pm
03 Mar 2007
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmJiZDEyYzkxYWE0OWYx ...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:35 pm
03 Mar 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:55 pm
03 Mar 2007
RFK jr opposes Cape Wind. RFK jr is the head lawyer for NRDC. Suddenly NRDC comes out for "clean" coal.
This feller does not have any ethical or political philosophy except political expendience, the end justifies the means.
Free markets? Typical "freemarketeerian" sophistry. Good one JS.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 10:11 pm
03 Mar 2007
However, the post that started this all is rather thin, IMHO.
It all comes down to language misused and disconnected from material reality.
Consider the terms 'market distortions' and 'incorrect pricing'; they're infinitely pliable, and viable until you consider the (apparently un-obvious to most economists) fact that every market has to have rules, and every rule can be called a distortion, there is no objective arbiter of a 'correct price', and, let's remember that the ultimate purpose of a market is...
You finish the rest.
I.e. the statement that 'The things most damaging to the environment are actually anti-market distortions such as subsidies and the incorrect pricing of polluting activities' is, well, besides being old-fashioned, also pretty meaningless.
As someone who has spent that last 3 years thinking about ecosystem services, payments for ecosystem services, and teaching myself basic economics, I've come to the conclusion that 'Libertarianism' is nothing but a chimeric scam - nice ideals set in an unsupportable framework. The problem, as some others on this list have pointed out, is in the practical realm. The actual manifestations of many 'Libertarian' ideals do nothing to advance liberty except for a small group of private tyrants. 'Libertarian' ideals are, in my experience, also mostly advanced by deeply retrogressive individuals who have a lot to lose from more egalitarian social systems.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:17 pm
03 Mar 2007
<<
During a question-and-answer session, Coulter referred back to the issue of gays by alluding to the bid for the Republican presidential nomination being made by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
"I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media -- how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being pro-gays, and that's going to upset the right wingers," she said. "Well, you know, screw you! I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against."
She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they're victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us."
>>
How nice. The Republicans do not want gays to be discriminated against, they just want to lock them into second-class citizenship, and refuse them their right to be married. And then, we gays ought to be Republicans, because the Republicans will look after all our tons of money -- as though I had money, and as though money is all that counts, and as though our regularly being mocked and abused and excluded, and sometimes beat up, and even sometimes killed, does not matter.
Really, Jason, remind me again what the point of this thread is: something like, we can easily get over our superficial disagreements?
Right.
Anyway, generally, I love what Birdboy has lately written. RFK Jr. is not someone who interests me very much, so I have no opinion on him, save that it is a pity if he might have been a true environmentalist leader, and fell down. At least his relative (sister?, cousin?), Maria Shriver, seems to be converting Arnold into a de-facto environmentalist Democrat, bit by bit.
On "the evaluation of Nature," and the various other issues that he writes about, Birdboy writes very well indeed.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:47 pm
03 Mar 2007
Coulter is a regift for our side. Her wing nut idiocy and gaunt unhealthy demeanor go hand in hand. Bad karma all around.
The same with drudge, Limbaugh, Boortz and this new CNN wing nut (mass delusional)media creep, Beck. Very unhealthy in mind, body, and spirit. The public can sense that.
They are driving the swing voters away from the GOP. It's a positive trend Canis. But it is difficult to put up with their flaming hate.
Good thing we don't have to! By opposing them our side looks very good now. The tide is turning thanks to Cheney's war for oil.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jscorse Posted 4:38 am
04 Mar 2007
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:31 am
04 Mar 2007
Nevertheless, if "addressing them" requires some sort of entente cordiale, not to say cooperation, with some very unpleasant people, well, that is a difficulty that needs to be addressed as well.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:48 am
04 Mar 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:57 am
04 Mar 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 4:47 am
05 Mar 2007
Yet, I too am not sure I can play nice with people who:
-think the U.S. has a 'divine right' to dominate the world
-have a bizarre associations with the religious right (why good Christians would want to keep their money instead of supporting the common good, I'll never understand).
-associate government regulation with the essence of evil (as if the market was 'fair')
-won't give a dime to support anything that doesn't directly and obviously benefit themselves
I'd be glad to work with those conservatives still standing. Anyone? And just for the record, 'Liberal' does not mean 'tax and spend', it means believing in freedom, diversity and equal opportunity.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink