Why The Left Is Wrong on the Environment
5 reasons why liberal Red Green and Blue commentators are wrong about the Republican’s record on the environment, and another 7 reasons why the Democrats have failed.
One look at it [Red Green and Blue] and it was clear that you suffer from the misconception that only liberals care about greenness therefore, we won’t mind your obvious political bias and childish slaps at people like me…
…..I’ve been a Republican since 1992 and can’t think of a single Republican I know that is anything less than concerned about this planet….
….Web sites like yours perpetuate the lie that Republicans have not been friendly to the environment.
Our reader goes on to provide 5 reasons why liberals, particularly those that write for Red Green and Blue, are wrong:
- The bipartisan effort of Congressman Wally Herger and Dianne Feinstein in far northern California was passed in 1998 and signed by Clinton. This program has the full support of the Bush Administration, which has made healthy forests a priority from his first days in office. Environmental extremists including the Sierra Club have fought such measures, issuing denigrating statements about the efforts. Environmentalist policies that have kept the forests unhealthy resulted in untold losses in California wildfires last summer and in other years.
- Drilling for oil in ANWR has consistently been stopped, mostly by liberals, and backed, mostly by conservatives and, regardless of party, the majority of residents of Alaska. Liberals look at the goal of drilling in ANWR as an environmental black eye for conservatives, even as we continue to import oil. But at tremendous cost to themselves, oil companies have improved their technology to the point that the impact of extraction on the environment is a tiny fraction of what it once was. And of course, the caribou population which liberals claim would be damaged grew geometrically after the construction of the Alaskan pipeline which gave them a source of warmth. It’s clear that no amount of technological improvement is enough for liberals to drop their partisanship.
- In northern California and across the country, the bee population is being decimated by disease (Colony Collapse Disorder). I don’t consider this a partisan issue, but the leaders of the state beekeepers association and the major bee farms in far northern California are almost all Republicans. They are leading the way to fixing the problem by working with U.C. Davis to increase research and provide specimens to fight the disease and rejuvenate the bee population. They have also proposed legislation to stiffen the penalties for hive destruction and theft. If you are not bothered by this, you should know that pollination affects 1/3 of our nation’s food supply, including ice cream.
- Also in California, the head of a local water district spent hours explaining to me how local Republican legislators have tried to preserve our water supply. Grassroots watershed groups, mostly conservative farmers, donate untold amounts of time trying to preserve and protect the waterways. Are they all Republicans? Of course not. But drive down the main road that is dotted with family farms and in recent days, you see steam of McCain/Palin signs displayed near the road, and only a rare Obama/Biden sign.
- The 1990 Clean Air Amendments were signed by President George H.W. Bush that has undeniably resulted in significantly reduced air pollution, especially the acid rain control program. In its first phase, it reduced annual sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 percent bellowed allowable levels. Industries have been almost 100 percent compliant. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Clear Skies Initiative (with a Republican Congress) which, even media liberals called the most significant step this country has taken to reduce power plant emissions and reduce air pollution.
And another 7 good reasons why liberals have failed on the environment:
- In 2006, Ted Kennedy opposed the building of an environmentally friendly wind farm (CapeWind Project), about six miles from the coast of the Kennedy compound. At the time it was thought he opposed it because the windmills could be seen from the Kennedy compound, but research showed it was Robert Kennedy Jr. (huge proponent of alternative energy sources) because it would be in the path of the Kennedy family’s favourite yachting and sailing area.
- Al Gore, responsible for the Global Warming fiasco, uses twice as much energy in his home in one month as the average family uses in an entire year. His spokesperson, Kalee Kreider did not dispute the facts as reported. Barbra Streisand - self-appointed diva of the left - has similarly shameful statistics. She lectured us on such niceties as only running our dishwashers when they are full and drying clothes on the clothesline… the lecture was delivered from her 10,000 square foot oceanfront home, with no clothesline.
- Gore pushed the Kyoto Treaty when he and Clinton were in the White House, but Clinton refused to sign it. Only Romania signed it at that point.
- Pennsylvania Democrats went after Republican Senator Rick Santorum, and one of the points they made was that he waited four years to get his dog neutered. Hello? No mention of how Clinton’s dog was hit and killed because it was running loose on the street near Hillary’s New York mansion. No mention of those pictures of Lyndon Johnson picking his dogs up, by their ears, several feet off the ground.
- When Clinton was filmed dedicating the Grand Escalante Staircase National Monument in Utah, he ordered that thousands of trees that obscured the picture be destroyed.
- Environment extremists blocked the thinning of forests and the construction of roads into the forests for the purpose of clearing out dead and dying timber, which would have removed fuel that feeds wildfires. Because of their constant interference, they are responsible for the wildfires that swept California last summer.
- Liberals have consistently blocked drilling in ANWR (claiming it takes ten years or more to get refined oil, yet dismissing the fact that they’ve been blocking drilling for at least 13 years), but on seeing the effect on gas prices in recent months, they rethought their opposition to drilling. Of course, they do not take responsibility, but blame Bush. They have even floated a theory that Bush is hoarding oil underground at his Texas ranch.
And a final closing remark:
I’m deeply sorry that you cannot see past your own political weaknesses. You’ve turned what could be a great forum for disseminating information into a childish rant.
What do you think?
Image credit: Chris Gin at Flickr under a Creative Commons license
Finally!
As one of the writers for GO, I have just about abandoned reading Red, Green and Blue the past few weeks. I fully understand the reader who said that this web-site has the immediate appearance of hating people like me. And I’m an environmentalist.
As someone who is still undecided as who to vote for, I don’t feel as if the posts here have helped me at all because they are so one sided. And as an Independent with conservative leanings, I’ve had to look elsewhere for balanced opinions.
Now, I know this is a blog, not a formal news site, and the point of a blog is to state opinions along with news. A better balance of opinions would be nice, though. This is a good start. Thanks Mark.
You are known by the company you keep.
Otherwise, lefties are failures too as should be obvious by the lack of action on the environment. As many, if not more, lefties have been bought off to prevent true change at federal level in many countries. The system itself rewards greed and corruption and not environmentalism.
To our reader, thanks for taking the time to make so many interesting mentions of environmental topics– your reach of issues and the detail you provide is impressive. I don’t agree with most of what you say, but some things I do (such as LBJ holding his dogs by the ears). My question for you is: want to apply to write for Red, Green, and Blue?
I definitely believe that being Republican doesn’t = anti-environment just as being Democrat doesn’t = pro-environment at all times.
I’d love to have another perspective as most of our writers at Green Options and on Red, Green, and Blue tend to lean more liberally.
I find it amazing that as soon as an actor[actress] makes a statement concerning the environment it is jumped on by the right as being a spokesman for all Progressives. That is their opinion[which they are entitled to] not mine. There are plenty of conservatives in Hollywood who have come out with their opinions but I have not seen their comments attached to the Republican Party. Stop watching A.I. and other so called reality shows and read,read,read articles concerning both sides of an issue and learn to form your own opinion and vote!!
Wow. A lot to absorb there.
I consider myself pretty liberal and I work in the environmental community, so I think I qualify as one of the people who’s “wrong”, according to this reader. The ‘left’ is a pretty big group, and I think assuming everyone agrees with Ted Kennedy and Barbera Streisand is just as ridiculous as assuming that all Republicans don’t care about the environment. But let’s examine a few of the reader’s points:
1) Fuel reduction in Western (and other) forests is a concern. However, the Healthy Forests initiative used fuel reduction as a backdoor to allow the logging industry free reign in old growth and other forests that weren’t at risk from wildfire. But if you’re saying that some environmental groups sometimes go too far in trying to preserve wilderness when they should attempt to balance preservation with sustainability, then your point is well-taken.
2) I’m not clear as to why opposing ANWR drilling makes liberals wrong on the environment. I can tell you that environmentalists who oppose it don’t care about metaphorical fistfights with conservatives. Most people in the environmental community care about issues, rather than parties or ideologies. They regularly work with Republicans in Congress. If they appear to support Democrats, it’s because Democrats vote in favor of the issues they care about.
The reality about oil is that the US has very little of it (less than 3% of supply) and as long as we keep using it, we will be dependent on Saudi Arabia, Russia and other countries which control most of the supply. Even if we put oil wells all over the OCS and ANWR, overall US production will continue to decline as it has for almost forty years, and demand will keep going up. The only solution is to use less, which is why drilling is not a solution. As far as caribou go, the pipeline only crosses the territory of two of the twelve major herds in Alaska, so it really doesn’t affect them one way or the other.
3) I don’t think beekeeping is partisan either, so I’m confused as to why you pointed out that they’re “almost all Republicans”. Was there an anti-bee entry on RGB that missed?
4) It’s been my experience that Californians, regardless of party, are very cognizant and protective of the environment in general. Nothing in this point surprised me.
5) Bush 41 had a good environmental record overall, though I’d point out that the CAA amendments were passed by a Democratic congress. Clear Skies, on the other hand, actually weakened the CAA - it reduced pollution FAR less than if the EPA had simply enforced the original law. I don’t know who in the media you’re referring to, but pretty much all environmental groups hate this law.
As for the other stuff, some of it’s unsubstantiated and much is, frankly, irrelevant. What does Rick Santorum’s dog have to do with the environment? Ted Kennedy was wrong on the wind farm and I don’t know any environmentalist who would disagree. Clinton probably would have signed Kyoto, but the (Republican-controlled) Senate made it clear that it wouldn’t be ratified. (Are you saying you support Kyoto?)
Pointing out that Gore’s a hypocrite, while amusing to his critics, misses the point of his message: individual actions don’t matter much with regards to global warming. Eliminating your carbon footprint in this economy is virtually impossible, even for the wealthiest. Most of us can’t buy renewable energy even if we wanted to, and our economy is built around wasting energy and resources, not conserving them. If you think fossil fuels are going to last forever and don’t do any permanent damage to the environment… well, good luck to you, but every piece of scientific evidence leads to a different answer. Policy changes (pricing pollution, giving grid parity to renewables, etc) will alter people’s choices and behavior by giving them different incentives. If your mansion doesn’t inflict harm on the rest of us through environmental damage, then build ten of them for all I care.
Anyway, my overall point is this: there are clearly plenty of Republicans and other conservatives that care about the environment, and it’s irresponsible and unfair to suggest otherwise. But they’re mostly moderates, and moderates have been steadily and forcefully pushed out of the Republican party for the better part of two decades. The party’s dominant ideology sees environmental protection as anathema to economic growth, which is a load of horsecrap. Plenty of Republicans know this - particularly in California - but the national party leadership along with the conservative base is controlled by anti-science, anti-environmental ideologues, so you’ll understand if sometimes liberals paint your party with too broad a brush.
Great points Michael! And for the record–although I lean far to the left–I respect the personal opinions of Republicans and know (as evidenced by my Purple Demoblican cartoon–MJG#31) that it’ll take both sides to make a difference for the environment. Let’s start working together–this back and forth is a good step.
One reason conservatives have been bad for the environment: Bush’s EPA is working very hard to meet a deadline this Saturday to put a new rule in effect to allow electrical plants to burn more fuel without adding any additional constraints on pollution.
One reason the liberals are bad for the environment: they aren’t making it and issue.
One reason the media is bad for the environment: they aren’t covering this.
Why don’t conservatives and liberals alike decide to consider the environment something worth saving? They can still disagree on how to deal with the problem (and should).
Typical divisive, black-white, liberal-conservative, “We are Right-They are Wrong” politics of the 20th Century. Looking forward to Obama-style “all hands on deck” approach to working together for our common goals and interests. The cultural war is coming to an end.
Individual Republicans can certainly be pro-environment and really get it: both on the danger of global warming (and thus the need for renewable solar, wind, ocean, biomass and geothermal energy,) and on creating a more sustainable world economy that we can all survive in, while preserving nature.
Governor Crist of Florida and Schwartznegger of California truly get it.
But the reason that Republicans are seen as the obstruction is that — in congress: they are.
For instance, the Republicans have nearly all voted against clean energy all 50 times that it has come up for a vote since 1993.
The few who voted with the Democrats were Smith (OR) Coleman(MN) Snowe and Collins of Maine. These 4 Republicans and all 51 Democrats have not been able to bypass the 60 vote filibuster by the other Republicans on clean energy. (And sometimes Landrieau (D-LA) has voted dirty with the Republicans)
James Inhofe said “global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind”, and McCain voted 42 of 44 times with Inhofe against clean energy. As did all the Republicans.
Except for those 4. Now that is one terrible record.
Here is the full list:
McCain’s 50 Votes Against Clean Energy
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm
(if you click on the rollcall vote links you can see that the Republicans were obstructing all the votes.)
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the U.S. presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before leaving power.
Whether it’s getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste or making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations, these proposed changes have found little favor with environmental groups.
The one change most environmentalists want, a mandatory program to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions, is not among these so-called “midnight regulations.”
Bureaucratic calendars make it virtually impossible that any U.S. across-the-board action will be taken to curb global warming in this administration, though both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have promised to address it if they win Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election.
Even some free-market organizations have joined conservation groups to urge a moratorium on last-minute rules proposed by the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.
“The Bush administration has had eight years in office and has issued more regulations than any administration in history,” said Eli Lehrer of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “At this point, in the current economic climate, it would be especially harmful to push through ill-considered regulations in the final days of the administration.”
John Kostyack of the National Wildlife Federation, which joined Lehrer’s group to call for a ban on these last-minute rules, said citizens are cut out of the process, allowing changes in U.S. law that the public opposes, such as rolling back protections under the Endangered Species Act.
WHAT’S THE RUSH?
The Bush team has urged that these regulations be issued no later than Saturday, so they can be put in effect by the time President George W. Bush leaves office on January 20.
If they are in effect then, it will be hard for the next administration to undo them, and in any case, this may not be the top priority for a new president, said Matt Madia of OMB Watch, which monitors the White House Office of Management and Budget, through which these proposed regulations must pass.
“This is typical,” Madia said of the administration’s welter of eleventh-hour rules. “It’s a natural reaction to knowing that you’re almost out of power.”
Industry is likely to benefit if Bush’s rules on the environment become effective, Madia said.
“Whether it’s the electricity industry or the mining industry or the agriculture industry, this is going to remove government restrictions on their activity and in turn they’re going to be allowed to pollute more and that ends up harming the public,” Madia said in a telephone interview.
What is unusual is the speedy trip some of these environmental measures are taking through the process.
For example, one Interior Department rule that would erode protections for endangered species in favor of mining interests drew more than 300,000 comments from the public, which officials said they planned to review in a week, a pace that Madia called “pretty ludicrous.”
Why the rush? Because rules only go into effect 30 to 60 days after they are finalized, and if they are not in effect when the next president takes office, that chief executive can decline to put them into practice — as Bush did with many rules finalized at the end of the Clinton administration.
White House spokesman Tony Fratto denied the Bush team was cramming these regulations through in a hasty push.
Fratto discounted reports “that we’re trying to weaken regulations that have a business interest,” telling White House reporters last week the goal was to avoid the flood of last-minute rules left over from the Clinton team.
There is at least one Bush administration environmental proposal that conservation groups welcome: a plan to create what would be the world’s largest marine wildlife sanctuary in the Pacific Ocean. That could go into effect January 20.
(Editing by Alan Elsner)