Conservative answer to Global Warming

[JimL]

What do you guys think? Can the only political response to Global Warming by Conservatives in the US be to deny it?

Seems to be the case, though I wouldn't say they are in denial, I'd say they are unethical politicians in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. Btw, just as an aside, June of 2019 was the hottest June in the history of record keeping.

[Cow Poke]

Would a cap and trade system be consistent with Conservative political philosophy? After all this is about global pollution. I think both sides have a good sense of property right, and that if the local coal power plant spills toxic sludge and ruins a river, they have to pay for the clean up and thereby go bankrupt.

However, how do you extend the notion of property rights to the entire planet?

Unfortunately, I think the opportunity for greed is far too great for a cap and trade system to work. I know, I'm a cynic.

[rogue06]

Pro-nuclear is an EXTREMELY popular view on Reddit which leans left/far-left/radical-left. It's about the only semi-right view I've seen just about the entire website hold. The only other view the website holds that leans right is gun rights (though that has finally begun to soften a smidgen over the last couple years).

In fact, Reddit is SO pro-nuclear and left-leaning (outside of subreddits like r/The_Donald which has since been quarantined) that I've actually heard young Redditors suggest that anti-nuclear energy views must be Conservative. When you point out that the anti-nuclear energy thing was mostly a left-leaning, hippy-dippy, tree-huggin kinda thing, they simply have no response for it because it's outside of their historical framework, and something they're completely unfamiliar with. It's very strange.

The left's support of nuclear power is a complete 180 from 40 to 50 years ago

[Adrift]

The left's support of nuclear power is a complete 180 from 40 to 50 years ago

Apparently, and it's mind-boggling to me. I'm of that generation that grew up on Silkwood and The China Syndrome. The left was absolutely terrified about nuclear power and nuclear radiation. The teachers in my 80s East Coast education flamed those concerns, to the point where incidences like the Fukushima disaster, and the new TV series Chernobyl bring to hyper-contrast those concerns, and make me think that, nah, I'm cool with not ever having nuclear energy. It's just too volatile, and mankind is prone to error. I'd rather we dig into more natural, renewable resources like wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal sources.

[KingsGambit]

Not with every one. A lot of conservatives argue the cost of trying to mitigate it (especially from an economic perspective) would have worse effects if nothing was done. The second negative cost would be trying to get government (which fails at most things) to solve it.

Maybe the think tankers, but the average conservative on the street (at least the ones I know personally, as well as the one in the White House) seem to prefer the tack of "this winter was cold, therefore, global warming is false".

In any event, if one acknowledges global warming as a negative externality, there shouldn't be anything inherently non-conservative about cap and trade. This is why I think the more common tack is to simply deny the externality exists.

[rogue06]

Maybe the think tankers, but the average conservative on the street (at least the ones I know personally, as well as the one in the White House) seem to prefer the tack of "this winter was cold, therefore, global warming is false".

There are folks like that aplenty on the other side as well. Everytime the temperature is above average you'll hear someone intone on TV that it's global warming.

[Terraceth]

Maybe the think tankers, but the average conservative on the street (at least the ones I know personally, as well as the one in the White House) seem to prefer the tack of "this winter was cold, therefore, global warming is false".

In any event, if one acknowledges global warming as a negative externality, there shouldn't be anything inherently non-conservative about cap and trade. This is why I think the more common tack is to simply deny the externality exists.

The usual argument I see from conservatives regarding cap and trade is that it not only hurts the economy, it's ineffective at fighting global warming anyway.

[Teallaura]

I suspect cap and trade would actually damage the climate. Only Western nations can afford to try it. The Third World is already industrializing at an increasing pace. If Western Nations hamstring themselves many Third World nations will gladly fill the gap, minus the protections that Western nations have in place.

[Cow Poke]

There are folks like that aplenty on the other side as well. Everytime the temperature is above average you'll hear someone intone on TV that it's global warming.

OR any of a number of tragedies -- instantly "climate change"!

[KingsGambit]

Another alternative that conservatives shouldn't have a problem with is simple - planting more trees, especially if done by conservation minded billionaires (Ted Turner?) who can afford all the land to do so. This article I just came across suggests forest restoration could go a long way.

Unfortunately, it might take quite a few trees to offset what Brazil's newly elected president is doing in the Amazon.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-.../#.XR6up497nIU

[Teallaura]

Another alternative that conservatives shouldn't have a problem with is simple - planting more trees, especially if done by conservation minded billionaires (Ted Turner?) who can afford all the land to do so. This article I just came across suggests forest restoration could go a long way.

Unfortunately, it might take quite a few trees to offset what Brazil's newly elected president is doing in the Amazon.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-.../#.XR6up497nIU

It depends - another fiasco planting trees where the land can't sustain them isn't worth doing. The natural reclamation cycle is grass-shrub-tree and skipping the first two often fails.

It's been done in Africa and China is trying it now - both labor intensive failures. Land needs water, animals and grasses to become fertile again - people sticking trees in the ground and watering them until they die doesn't work.

So, if we're talking reclamation, I'm all for it. Another 'feel good tree planting' - skip!

[oxmixmudd]

It depends - another fiasco planting trees where the land can't sustain them isn't worth doing. The natural reclamation cycle is grass-shrub-tree and skipping the first two often fails.

It's been done in Africa and China is trying it now - both labor intensive failures. Land needs water, animals and grasses to become fertile again - people sticking trees in the ground and watering them until they die doesn't work.

So, if we're talking reclamation, I'm all for it. Another 'feel good tree planting' - skip!

So what you saying is that the deforestation of brazil is more serious than most pro-envieonment groups recognize.

Jim

[Teallaura]

So what you saying is that the deforestation of brazil is more serious than most pro-envieonment groups recognize.

Jim

No. I'm saying we don't need wastes of money that make people feel like we're doing something when in fact we're just making things worse.

In desert reclamations planting trees have failed a number of times. In woodlands, grasses come in, then shrub THEN trees - are rain forests different? That land doesn't retain fertility well so planting trees too soon may fail, too. Maybe we should find out before messing around.

[Mountain Man]

Can the only political response to Global Warming by Conservatives in the US be to deny it?

It depends on what you mean by "deny it". If you mean deny the liberal narrative that temperature is only moving in one direction, and that man is the cause, then yes, most conservatives will deny it, and for good reason. The science is simply not there to support such a claim, no matter how much liberals whoop and holler about "consensus" and "settled science". Trying to stop the natural climatic variations of the Earth that have been happening since Creation makes about as much sense as trying to stop the Earth from orbiting the sun.

I'm all for good environmental stewardship, but most liberal plans are simply an attempt to open our borders, destroy the US economy, and give backwards nations the opportunity to raid our economic resources, and it won't do a thing to stop "climate change".

[oxmixmudd]

No. I'm saying we don't need wastes of money that make people feel like we're doing something when in fact we're just making things worse.

In desert reclamations planting trees have failed a number of times. In woodlands, grasses come in, then shrub THEN trees - are rain forests different? That land doesn't retain fertility well so planting trees too soon may fail, too. Maybe we should find out before messing around.

My parents had a tree farm in alabama. The forestry service seemed to know exactly what they where doing. They told them how to pull out the old trees, plant the money making trees, did controlled burns etc. The trees grew up just fine over time to create a forest suitable for profit and a good deal of good hunting to boot.

Your example sounds more to me like it might be a cherry picked excuse used by whatever source you got it from for political means than reality given that the sort of successful planting and harvesting of trres that occurred on my parents land happens all the time.

Jim