When it comes to global warming, conservatism in this country is at a crossroads. Increasing numbers of business leaders, evangelicals, and conservative opinion-leaders are calling for action to reduce the risks associated with climate change, but the best-known conservatives continue to doubt the science of global warming, attack those who would act to reduce emissions, and deride those concerned by the threat to the planet.
To many sympathetic observers, it's puzzling. As Kerry Emmanuel pointed out in an essay for the Boston Review earlier this year, conservatives didn't have to react this way:
One can easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of climate change in support of actions they might like to see anyway. Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on foreign oil. The United States is renowned for its technological innovation and should be at an advantage in making money from any global sea change in energy-producing technology: consider the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles and electrical generation to China's rapidly expanding economy. But none of this has happened.
In recent weeks, a few brave voices on the right have challenged the movement's aversion to environmental action. One has even rediscovered the root connection between the word "conservative" and the concept of "conservation."
In a speech reprinted on the American Enterprise Institute's site, Steven Hayward pointed out:
If you were the proverbial Being from Mars dropped onto the American scene, nothing would seem more natural than to assume that environmentalism would be a conservative enthusiasm. Among other obvious things, conservative and conservatism share the same etymological root with conservation and conservationism, and while conservationism and environmentalism may not be identical, they are clearly blood relatives.
More pointedly, in a Sunday column for the Dallas Morning News two weeks ago, Rod Dreher -- the author of "Crunchy Cons" -- wrote:
Conservatives are supposed to be cautious by nature and in principle. But when it comes to global warming, conservatives are the loudest voices advocating recklessness. What, exactly, is conservative about sneering at overwhelming scientific evidence?
Unfortunately, to date, these sort of thoughtful rhetorical questions have been drowned out by the catcalls, false claims, and threats from the skeptics on the right. They include:
Ann Coulter, who in a column last week preposterously claimed:
There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.
Almost as unlikely was prominent right-wing pundit Jonah Goldberg's insistence on Talk of the Nation that global warming was a problem we can easily solve at some vague point in the distant future.
Neal Conan: A lot of people will say you are betting your grandchildren's future on your present prosperity.
Goldberg: No, I am willing to bet my grandchildren will be so prosperous that these sorts of problems will be able to be solved very quickly.
Then there was Dick Cheney. In an interview in Australia, he declared that the hundreds of scientists around the world who wrote the the fourth IPCC report on global warming -- which found a 90 percent probability that global warming was caused by humans -- were simply wrong:
Where there does not appear to be a consensus ... is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera.
And James C. Dobson, founder of the powerful Focus on the Family religious group, who last week called on the National Association of Evangelicals to "fire or silence" Rev. Richard Cizik for preaching that Christians have a Biblical responsibility to protect the earth.
What's downright strange about this "see no carbon, hear no carbon, speak no carbon" stance is the contrast to the eagerness of American business to act on the issue now. As a recent Wall Street Journal story [subscription required] on the electrical utility industry pointed out:
Faced with growing demand for electricity and the environmental consequences of generating it, states and utilities are considering new regulatory regimes that remove the incentive for selling more power -- and give utilities a financial stake in saving energy.
The ultimate goal is to eliminate the need for new power plants. Many energy experts predict the U.S. will need hundreds of new plants in coming years to satisfy demand. State and industry officials increasingly believe that by changing the financial incentives for utilities, they can significantly increase the efficiency of the grid and make many of these power plants unnecessary, saving billions of dollars in the process.
And in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, both business leaders and enviros described a sea change in corporate strategy, as illustrated by the huge TXU buy-out that is expected to transform a corporate villain into a leader for the environmental cause.
"We've gotten beyond green-washing," said David G. Hawkins, head of the climate program for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who helped negotiate the TXU sale. "Businesses are realizing that global-warming solutions have to be a core element of a business strategy."
It's not just Democrats and environmentalists who want to see real leadership on this issue. It's also the CEOs of some of this nation's largest corporations, including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, and General Electric.
Is it just me, or are the stakes so high and so consequential that those who arrogantly sneer at pleas for action on global warming now appear slightly insane?
Comments
View as Flat
Kif Scheuer Posted 4:27 am
05 Mar 2007
I think it's well traveled territory to claim that a popular movement attracts opportunitsts. These opportunists often play to the crowd, but in the process can stagnate the movement. Since they are committed to their gains over the interests of the movement they can really stymie progress in a movement.
I recall a critique of the SDS in the 60s along these lines; the popular image of the movement resulted in a swarm of loosely committed joiners and an overhaul of the leadership that reflected the popular vision, but ultimately undermined the movement.
I have never heard this critique applied to the current conservative movement. How much do the FOX pundits and right-wing loug mouths reflect conservative views. They may make for salable entertainment, but does that mean conservatives want the same things? We(as in environmentalists or the left) often treat the loud mouths like Coulter as the actual voice of conservatism, but watching her spout ignorance on FOX, I couldn't help but feel a lot of conservatives must be embarrassed by her. Some of these more nuanced positions you offer above are out there and perhaps would resonate with conservatives if they got a wider audience.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:47 am
05 Mar 2007
You talk about "green washing" and that's exactly what the TXU is doing. They still want 3 more very large coal plants having "dirty coal" and might, I emphasize the word "might." explore other options such as nuclear or wind energy - both of which are cause for concern anyway. The only compfort is spending a measely $400 million on energy conservation - well maybe if they feel like it.
I feel little to rejoice about, and if the proposed merger takes place we could end up with 11 new TXU coal powerplants as well as 5 more done my independent companies, for a total of 16. I think you may have jumped the gun here, folks.
Please get the facts right befor grean washing TXU. Their full-page ads do not tell the real story. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:58 am
05 Mar 2007
We might question how much the sentiments of the conservative base reflect the sentiments of more mainstream conservatives, but people have been waiting for that split for a long, long time, and it hasn't happened yet. I wouldn't put any money on it.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:20 am
05 Mar 2007
Nicely written but it is so far from the logic of science it is laughable.
>> Kerry Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at MIT >>>
woo woo science from a Professor... well that defines the state of play, and now I understand why the establishment has become totally mentally deranged.
Give up all ye that had hope.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 6:06 am
05 Mar 2007
"Progressive" conservatives (ignore the oxymoron there for a minute) are the ones willing to champion environmental causes, because they see new opportunities to advance their beliefs, all in the name of continuing progress. Reactionary conservatives are the louder voice -- reactionaries down any party line are usually the loudest voice -- and you might also call them contrarians. Their version of conservatism is "no change."
David's sweeping generalization of conservatives lumps them all as reactionaries. They're certainly more vocal and powerful. But we're starting to see the "progressive" conservatives step forward on environmental issues. It would be interesting to assess the underlying roots of progressives vs. reactionaries, whether conservative or liberal.
The environmental movement needs to embrace conservatives as well as liberals if it wants to sustain itself.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 6:10 am
05 Mar 2007
I think the "split" you're referring to has happened in the past, but the two-party system eventually mends any prior splits.
Think about it, when Republicans are in power, more and more "conservatives" start looking to other outlets - remember Ross Perot. But eventually, an election like Al Gore vs. Bush reunites them under the Republican banner. When the Dems are in power, more "liberals" start looking to other outlets like the Green Party, and the Dems just haven't figured out how to reign them all back in as well as the Republicans have.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 6:30 am
05 Mar 2007
I am probably guilty of wishful thinking, it's a lifelong curse. These folks are rock stars, and I recognize they didn't achieve that status for nothing.
But to play with this a little more - overtime where is conservatism headed? How many of the current crop of rock stars in conservative politics were around a decade ago? That some of the influential figures are obviously out of step with their traditional allies in business, and that someone with so much voice as Dobson feels Czik is enough of a problem that he needs to be silenced, does suggest there are some cracks in the wall.
Perhaps a different analogy than rock and roll might serve; what about the .com bust? At it's height there were a lot of players in the internet boom who looked and sounded great. Now most are gone, and their offerings on reflection were so much tissue paper. The internet is still with us, some of the players are still active, but much has changed. Is conservatism riding a boom? I'm not at all saying that conservatism is about to fold up and disappear, just wondering about a possible disconnect between public voices and the movement as a whole, and how that might shake out over time.
As an exercise I took the thesis statement from our beloved "death of environmentalism" and scrambled it around into the death of conservatism:
The thesis is this: the conservative community's narrow definition of its self-interest leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power. When you look at the recent acceptance of global warming science it is hard not to conclude that the conservative movement's approach to environmental problems and policies hasn't worked particularly well. And yet, there is nothing about the behavior of conservative groups, that indicates that they as a community are ready to think differently about their work.
(adapted from the second page of the introduction)
I don't think this comparison is complete. Conservatives have done much to derail climate policies. However, we do keep moving forward (albeit slower than many of us would like). and some of the stalwart allies are shifting positions.
Anyway, this is nothing I'm holding fast to, I was just so blown away by Coulter's weirdness, that I got to wondering how many conservatives actually agree with her versus how many are just amused by her trash talking liberals, but actually are more grounded in reality.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:10 am
05 Mar 2007
NatureScene wrote...
"Progressive" conservatives (ignore the oxymoron there for a minute) are the ones willing to champion environmental causes, because they see new opportunities to advance their beliefs, all in the name of continuing progress. Reactionary conservatives are the louder voice -- reactionaries down any party line are usually the loudest voice -- and you might also call them contrarians. Their version of conservatism is "no change."
-------
Let's consider two definitions.
liberal:
1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
conservative:
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style... 3. Moderate; cautious...
It is my current opinion that the re-defining of what it means to be conservative is absurd. The "progressive" conservatives that NatureScene is referring to are people who have seen the writing on the wall, but are not able to let go of the label "conservative".
The world has changed. There are no longer unlimited natural resources ripe for exploitation. Third world countries are demanding control over their destinies. Our civilization depends on an educated work force not only intelligent enough to maintain the elite's desired standard of living, but intelligent enough to recognize when they are being exploited. There are no continents left to absorb the malcontents. The natural world can no longer absorb the waste products (externalized costs) of an industrial society. The "aristocracy" -- or whatever current term might apply to them -- can no longer conduct business as usual.
There was a time when business interests benefitted from conservative behavior. But it is no longer the case. Business interests are now seeing the advantage of embracing liberal policies.
Rather than help relatively progressive conservatives embrace liberal views and maintain their association with conservative political parties -- which I previously suggested elsewhere -- perhaps it is time to point out with unrelenting force of argument how businesses can benefit from a liberal agenda, how individuals can profit by adopting liberal views, how conservatism is no longer the recipe for success.
They had their chance to protect the environment. They had their chance to equate conservatism with conservation. But they dropped the ball. Liberal have taken the environment under their wing and should not allow conservatives to adopt it ever again. For conservatives will use it only as long as it is helpful and then toss it aside again when it no longer serves as part of their marketing schemes.
Conservatism is dead.
Forward!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:43 pm
05 Mar 2007
But notice how that shines light on major divisions. The religious/social conservatives do not belong in that bunch. Nor for that matter do the impressively large number of "middle Americans" who gave victories to Ronald Reagan and to Newt's Congress.
For this latter group, can Ann Coulter truly be a leader, or a spokesperson? She seems more a cheerleader, not quite as big and influential as Rush Limbaugh, but with a similar appeal.
As I see it, she probably does indeed bother many among both social conservatives and "middle Americans," who uphold an ideal of being decent, mild-mannered, friendly, smiling, helpful to one's neighbors, and never rude. Cf. the ever polite and quietly up-beat people of Springfield, MO, among whom my mother-in-law lives, and on whose cheerily offered assistance she sometimes needs to rely.
(Also, Frances McDormand, as lovable Officer Marge Gundersen, in "Fargo." Is Marge registered Republican? Probably, but hard to say. Money means little to her, apparently: consider her sweet but impecunious artist-husband. And Minnesota is way foreign to me. Pardon me if I add that nevertheless, William H. Macy is surely Republican. Anyway, Marge is the type I have in mind. And not, say, those unpredictable pistols from deep red Oklahoma, Thelma and Louise, discoverers of Springfield MO's favorite son Brad Pitt, whose decision was to flee from Oklahoma to Mexico, without daring to go through Texas -- very Molly-Ivinsish.)
But to whom exactly does Coulter as cheerleader give cheer? We need to ask: When, at the recent meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee, she obliquely called John Edwards a "faggot," and received immediate and abundant applause, who exactly were the people doing all the clapping? Presumably, another important conservative group, much less self-controlled and mannerly: the gun-clutching type, the "let's fight!" type, who bizarrely feel themselves the victims of totalitarian Sodomistic media-imperialistic leftist oppressors, such as myself.
Yuk yuk.
By contrast, Grover Norquist has an ideology, and has effected change with his No Taxes Ever! policy, and with his involvement in the "K Street Project," and so deserves to be called a leader -- at least of one group and class of conservatives.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:16 pm
05 Mar 2007
I have no interest whatsoever in defending the disgraceful Dobson. But for the sake of accuracy, it should be understood that according to the WashPost, he did not explicitly say, in this letter to the National Association of Evangelicals (which he had released to the press before he sent it to the NAE) calling for Cizik's head, or at very least his tongue and hands, that global warming was not happening, or that if it was, it was not caused by human activities. Dobson may indeed believe one or another of those things. But apparently his explicit concern was that Cizik's environmentalist/creation-care-ist preaching was dividing evangelicals.
After all, he no doubt believes, the God-ordained mission of American Christians is in the first place, to decry and obstruct gay rights, and to destroy women's rights; in the second place, to get as many politicians who "talk the talk" elected. That involves a Rovian commitment to the GOPs. So any other issues, endangering that political unity, are obviously evil.
Richard Cizik, on the other hand, is approaching sanctity. And I mean that most sincerely. He is appealing to an older sense of what is entailed in "evangelicalism," which many liberals can admire.
That word has shifted meaning greatly, over the years. The English social reformer William Wilberforce, active in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was an Anglican, i.e. in his case a member of the Church of England, and also a member of its "evangelical" branch. He was a principal mover in Parliament to abolishing the slave trade within British territory. The 200th anniversary of that legal action is coming up: March 25, 1806, is when it happened. And the newly released movie, "Amazing Grace," much heralded by many Christians of all stripes, celebrates Wilberforce's religious zeal on behalf of enslaved Africans.
The Humane Society of the United States also acclaims this movie. I cannot say whether it is a part of the story, not having seen the movie, but it seems that Wilberforce was also a leader regarding animal welfare.
We must remember: Wilberforce was "evangelical."
Also, we must remember that it is difficult to decipher the career of William Jennings Bryan by modern terminology. He was a populist, and supported many causes that we would rightly call liberal and progressive. But thanks to the play "Inherit the Wind," now revived on Broadway with Brian Dennehy and Christopher Plummer, he is usually dismissed as a Bible-quoting loser. In fact, back during the Scopes "Monkey" Trial, the social situation of evolution vs. creationism was very different from how it seems today. Possibly WJB could be called "evangelical"; surely, his prosecution might have succeeded, had he not relied on a sense of the inerrancy of a literal reading of the Bible, but instead had probed the social injustices associated with the scientifically advanced elite, in the age of Social Darwinism.
That difficult controversy, between absolutist biblical fundamentalism on the one hand, and on the other the deep moral resort to the Bible as a source for social criticism and an inspiration for social action, has apparently reappeared among evangelicals now, thank God, and thanks to the activity of Richard Cizik and his friends.
A nice line of discrimination might be revealed by asking: If the hatred of sin is a distinguishing character of the evangelical Christian, then, What is sin? Wilberforce is said to have been famous for hating sin; but in his case, that seems to have meant social sins, such as slavery, and animal abuse. With Dobson and his ilk, on the other hand, it apparently has more to do with dragging you out of your bedroom, and disgracing you in front of your neighbors.
Are Dobson and his ilk true Christians, and true evangelicals? No, and No.
Are they conservatives? No, not really. But even as they unfairly and offensively have co-opted the name "Christian" for themselves, so they seem to have done with the honorable epithet "conservative."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 3:10 am
06 Mar 2007
One note: according to Dreher's provocative blog, the National Association of Evangelicals considers Rev. Richard Cizik an important asset, and has no plans to follow Dobson's suggestion to "fire or silence" him.
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/2007/03/cizik-c ...
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:22 am
06 Mar 2007
Take for example Coulter's recent claims to gay voters. Does Coulter actually believe that gays will benefit by voting Republican? Of course not. Is she in any way concerned for the well-being of gays? Not at all. Does she see political advantage in playing on their particular fears and vulnerabilities? Absolutely. And will her machinations end up winning over some number of gay voters to a politics which is palpably not in their interest? Probably.
I suspect that progressive environmentalists, afflicted as we are by our almost unbounded sincerity, will never be able to work successfully towards common goals with conservatives whose ethical base has been so devastatingly corrupted by these voices without shame or conscience.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:26 am
06 Mar 2007
Instead of calling it environmentalism, call it "Creation Care"
i.e. You're protecting god's creations, and therefore being religous.
Kind of like how John Muir called forests to be god's cathedrals.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:36 am
06 Mar 2007
I was actually quite glad that Arnold Schwarzneggar (Republican), won over Angelidies (Democrat).
Since Angelidies, is exactly that type of person.
He can't be asked to cooperate with the other side.
An all-or-nothing approach is a surefire way to ensure nothing happens.
_
Besides which, Arnold is kind of a "weird" Republican anyways ;D
More of a ProBusiness Democrat, than a Republican.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:56 am
06 Mar 2007
Point me to a commentator on the left that has the prominence and reach of Ann Coulter, who says things comparable to what she says.
www.grist.org
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:07 am
06 Mar 2007
c"/
Wouldn't it be fun?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:41 am
06 Mar 2007
Ann Coulter, like most of the right's vocal leaders, has the maturity of a two year old. The world is all about meeting their immediate needs. They are not capable of recognizing that they have enough stuff. They are not capable of recognizing that there are other people with their own needs. And they cannot comprehend the long-term consequence of their actions. They also seem unable to play well with others... perhaps this suggests they are slightly behind two-year-olds in development, but I'm not a child psychologist. This pretty-much defines the right.
Prominent commentators on the left, on the other hand, are mature rational adults who understand that our civilization depends on mutual respect, recognizing there are different approaches to solving problems, and working together as a community. We did not emerge from the forest as solitary predators who tolerate one another only when necessary. Our success as a species depends on cooperation. The left understands this and their policies reflect this.
In a nutshell... if the left had it's own Ann Coulter, the left would not be the left... it would be the right.
Forward!
Permalink