The environmental solutions we need are innovative and market-driven, not heavy-handed governmental interventions.
When the principled conservative speaks of government not attempting to pick winners and losers in business, what better example than in the pursuit of new energy technology? Does this mean conservatives don‟t care about the state of the environment? Of course not. Our vision would create a better environment for the future, but we rely on sound scientific evidence, not hysteria and politically motivated conclusions.30 For example, it may be promising to switch to electric cars not to “stick it” to the oil companies, but because the electric car could eventually be more affordable, safe, easy to operate and recharge, and environmentally friendly (including battery disposal). In this area, we also use historical evidence that capitalist countries with private land ownership do a phenomenal job of protecting the environment compared to public land ownership in socialistic countries (there were great environmental degradations in the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors and in China under Mao).31
It is a sad fact that environmentalism has become almost a religion of the Left. They view it as a path to greater government social engineering, and a convenient way to bash capitalism. In the 21st century, if one doesn‟t accept the doomsday scenario of global warming and the most dramatic, heavy-handed government intervention or restriction on freedoms and industry in order to “fix” this predicted disaster, then one is accused of being a skeptic, denier, heretic—the sin of environmental blasphemy. And of course it doesn‟t matter which way the weather goes to prove their theory. If it‟s too hot, blame it on global warming. If it‟s unseasonably cool and stormy, blame that on global warming as well. It‟s quite a theory in that any actual recording of current and future temperatures, whatever the outcome, can be spun to support your theory!
But the principled conservative can take the environmental heat (or cold) from the environmental extremists. To blame humans for harming or destroying the planet is an exercise in utter self-hatred and self-flagellation.
Humans learn and change practices over time, based on new knowledge—otherwise it‟s taking a guilt complex to the extreme. We don‟t burn leaves any more, although our fathers did so when we were children because they didn‟t know of the harmful effects. Do we need to turn our fathers over to the EPA as environmental criminals to assuage our guilt?
We know from history that prosperous societies are better able to protect the environment. Public policy must consider all the options and act on the best possible science. Unfortunately in the 21st century, it is indeed a challenge to find the wheat from the strafe in the area of global warming, where the information source is not rigorously controlled scientific experiments but rather computer modeling to make future predictions. And these models are based on past data that probably prior to 1976 was not measured with the precision we have today.
Hence even making the statement that 1985 was colder than 1885 for example, assumes that temperature measurements for 1885 were as accurate as what existed in 1985. And we all agree that anecdotal evidence is not sufficient—citing evidence that citizens of 1885 complained of a cold winter is about as valid as someone today observing a cold night in Buffalo and claiming that global warming doesn‟t exist.
But let‟s not get carried away with skepticism. There is a lot of science demonstrating a general warming trend—albeit modest rather than the doomsday scenario. It is far beyond the scope of this book to dissect the world‟s climate history, the science behind global warming theories, what the average temperature will be like in 50 years, etc. We must simply say that if the only solution truly were to go back to living unclothed in the stone age—then surely we need another solution. Principled conservatives are optimists who believe science and technology will solve many societal issues, from efficient production of food (which did happen in the latter half of the 20th century) to environmental solutions. There is no doubt that the extent and causes of global warming are fully debatable, as are the types of changes in energy usage that will actually make a difference.
And students of history may recall the environmental experts in the 1970‟s who warned us of the pending ice age. The principled conservative is not suspicious of science and technology; we are suspicious of those with political agendas who purport to explain to the rest of us morons what the science means and in doing so distort it beyond recognition (Al Gore, are you listening?). We also heed the time-tested advice of Yogi Berra that
“predictions are always difficult—especially when they are about the future.”
Before offering guidance on contemporary environmental issues, let us reiterate categorically that the principled conservative does NOT view humans as despoiling the planet or that humans should be subordinate to animals, plants and trees. The fact is that overall humans have learned to better care for natural resources without damage, via more efficient methods of agricultural production, protecting animals, carrying out responsible logging, building energy-efficient “green” buildings, etc. Many animal species have been protected directly by human intervention, because in the animal kingdom often survival of the fittest means that both other animals and lands get wiped out and worn down. Thus, we view with disdain those organizations that care more about animals than people, or those that argue humans always despoil the planet. But this attitude is not the result of a religious belief that the earth and animals were put here by God to serve humans. It is based on the practical observation that our ancestors would all have starved and we would not be here today without killing animals and cutting down trees. It would be a silly guilt trip to call our ancestors all murderers. They were doing the best they could with the limited technology of the day, and didn‟t have the luxury to elevate animals to god-like status.
Of course humans have responsibilities towards animals, specifically that of caretaker and protector. This does not mean we are “playing God” or discriminating against other species. “We are morally entitled to make such choices precisely because our morality declares that humans are entitled to judge, to subdue, to have dominion over the Earth.”32 We also stand firmly opposed to those who would oppose animal research to advance the understanding of diseases and health care treatments in humans. Does this mean a human life is worth more than an animal life? Absolutely! Let‟s do a simple test. Your child has a deadly form of cancer. Dissecting your family dog may yield some hope for a cure. Your family loves the dog, but you would put the dog down in a split second to help the human child. The principled conservative has little patience for the animal rights extremists, other than to suggest that they spend some time unarmed in the wilds with lions and tigers and see how human-friendly the animals are to them.
In the environmental area the principled conservative must always have the BS detector set in the “on” position.
Some of the feel-good plans to “save the environment” are just plain silly and/or will have little impact on the environment. For example, sending everything via e-mail did not eliminate paper, it just changed who was doing the printing. Now we have the futile reminders on e-mails to think twice before printing out your e-mail.
We say print it out without guilt! Besides, if you‟re using recycled paper in the office, what‟s the big deal?
Speaking of recycling, let us understand that we have to measure all the costs of transporting said materials to the recycling centers, and the power needed to run such centers. Further, “‟organic‟ food requires far more land to produce—and is therefore less green—than land-frugal, factory-farmed alternatives.”33 The point is simply that all impacts must be measured and the net positive impact on the environment is not always as simple as it appears on the surface.
As noted, the principled conservative embraces technology and recognizes the amazing advances. We support entrepreneurs; we simply abhor allowing government to guarantee or subsidize one competitor over another or one industry over another. The principled conservative is not a purveyor of nostalgia, however. We do not seek to bring back the horse and buggy because our grandfathers liked horses or keep General Motors in business simply because our fathers liked the ‟57 Chevy. (That is why the government bailout and subsequent takeover of GM must rank for the principled conservative as one of the most despicable, stupid, misguided acts of government in the 21st century to date.) Even though we love books and lifelong learning, and suspect that the printed book will never go out of style, there are no technological guarantees in life. Perhaps future generations will prefer the advanced Kindle or similar devices over paper. At such point, all might celebrate over the decreased need for paper and cutting down forests, even while many printers will go out of business. The difference in attitude would be that the Leftist reading the paperless book will think about how the forest was saved, while the principled conservative will simply note that a superior technology to the printed book won out in the market-place. Further, the reality is that “we are saving the Earth with the technologies that the Softs [i.e.
the touchy-feely environmentalists] most passionately oppose.”34
That is all fine and dandy some might say, but what about areas where technology might not provide the solution and the people and the government just stubbornly refuse to select the right environmentally conscious policy? Let us be perfectly clear. We prefer to burn up or drown in a (albeit far-fetched) global warming catastrophe due to bad decisions in a democracy, than to survive based on dictatorial decrees and a lack of democracy. What good it is to save the physical body if a society loses it soul and its freedoms? Besides, we can afford to be flippant because the principled conservative strongly suspects that in twenty years or so, Americans will be asking themselves how could so many scientific and media “experts” have been so off the mark about global warming. Plus we‟ll all feel a little foolish for worrying so much about carbon footprints.
The fundamental energy question in the early part of the 21st century is alternative energy sources to oil. Should Americans all agree that reducing oil consumption and finding alternative energy sources is a compelling goal in response to a compelling problem? Yes, and it is compelling, even if global warming were proven to be utterly false, for the following reasons:
a)It will have some positive environmental impact;
b)It is in the national security interest to achieve energy independence or at least less dependence on oil, since so many sales comes from countries that use their oil profits to support anti-U.S. activities; c)It‟s not an unlimited resource so we should have alternative plans in place for a rainy day.
The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is naturally being played to the hilt by the environmental zealots, as though we never knew before that oil exploration in the ocean floor could be a risky business. But to suggest this means all off-shore oil exploration should cease, for any period of time, is an ill-advised, panicky response to a vital fuel we need for a period of time in the transition to a more sustainable and easier to access or develop source of energy.
But while the principled conservative need not object to what has become an environmental mantra that America must develop a clean, alternative and safe renewable energy source, we do not believe that the government should pick winners and losers in this game of energy competition. For example, historically there was no massive government subsidy program to develop the car industry; Henry Ford came up with the Model-T and mass production idea by himself. Now some might argue that in this highly technical age of the 21st century the vision of a sole inventor/genius tinkering in his garage is nostalgic but outdated. That may be. It might only be a large company that finds the winning product; or a medium-sized one; or a small one. The point is, we don‟t know and certainly the government doesn‟t know. What the government can do is simply set the stage for such development. But setting the stage does not mean through subsidy policies (direct grants or tax breaks) to pick one technology over another. A principled conservative should oppose such arrangements. What about a carrot approach such as a prize for a new vehicle, fuel, or energy source? Some will argue that, in the same vein the government invested massively in sending a man to the moon, a mammoth government-funded undertaking is needed because the project is beyond the scope of private enterprise to develop and implement.
These are good points and we would not be opposed to open competition, or even an award program co-funded by government and private institutions (such as non-profit foundations). It might be an idea worth trying. But the criteria for funding such “requests for proposals” must be rigorous. As noted in regards to recycling, we always need an accurate analysis and accounting of costs when considering energy alternatives. For example, one cannot factor in the benefits of ethanol without measuring the costs of increased acreage to grow the crops used in its production, energy use to grow such crops, agricultural run-off into streams and rivers, and taking those acres of land off the market for other possible uses (namely, growing food for sale around the world that might actually prevent starvation).
Dare we hazard any predictions about the competition beyond letting the markets work? We would simply point out that cost, ease of production and distribution, and less negative side-effects usually produce the winner and consumers pick it because of these factors—especially price. More and more “green” building is being done because of anticipated energy savings, not because every single purchaser feels guilty about the environment (although no doubt some do). But what is the magic energy source of the 21st century? Unless we are Nostradamus, we cannot predict the future and cannot possibly know. Did anyone in 1900 accurately predict that by the end of the 20th century the most common travel mode for long distances would be the jet aircraft?
Sure, there are many contenders for the energy prize. Possibly nuclear power, but without government subsidies (other than appropriate protection against frivolous nuisance lawsuits) it is not clear as to long-term profitability. Solar and wind power are clean, but can they ever produce the quantities and predictable flow of energy needed? There are many skeptics, but let investors and common sense and consumers decide. And be wary of the energy development that will only be great with a huge government heaping of corporate welfare.
Again, at present we cannot possibly know the most prevalent energy source for America by the year 2100.
Further, we do not even know if the vehicle of the future is the electric car. Besides battery disposal issues, if the underlying electricity to charge the car is not from a “clean” source, then the car is not as environmentally friendly as advertised. The principled conservative would simply say that government should set the tone and stage to spur innovation, not attempt to predict the outcome or be a central planner. The cost of the product must be reasonable and the consumer demand must be present, for that is how markets work. One has to be confident that a venture capitalist or corporation would be willing to jump all over an energy breakthrough that would bring immense profit. This is the difference between trusting the markets versus trusting central planning, or accepting corporate welfare to help one company gain in market share or one industry gain over another industry.
As for changes in individual energy consumption, let‟s skip past the easier stuff like more efficient home lighting, insulation, etc. Consider mass transit to get people to and from jobs, schools, and entertainment. Mass transit is widely regarded by Americans as a great idea—for other people. Despite various incentives, Americans still do not seem to flock to mass transit. Do we keep trying, or just give up and focus on electric cars or similar personal vehicles because Americans are much more likely to choose the personal freedom of car travel versus taking the train or bus? And how can we make mass transit inroads anyway in a manner that doesn‟t restrict freedom and try to change human nature? By the latter, we have to realistically understand that Americans who can afford it are not going to spend an extra 45 minutes getting where they are going by taking a city bus. It is just not going to happen. And we know that most mass transit systems were designed for the suburban-downtown commute, not suburb-to-suburb. And we know that heavily subsidized Amtrak trains are never profitable except in densely populated corridors that more closely resemble the short distances covered by railroad-happy Europe.
But here we encounter an interesting paradox. Whenever gas prices reach the $3 or $4 per gallon level, it is the committed Leftists who drone on about oil company conspiracies and insist that the government must act to prevent gas prices from rising. This is perplexing because even if their paranoid oil company conspiracies were true, wouldn‟t this be a great thing for the environment? If prices rose and rose, Americans would make the consumer choice to switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and (gasp) sometimes even take mass transit.
Hence, the principled conservative would remind Americans that there is no inherent constitutional right to operate a car, that gas prices will follow the market, and if that influences the decisions noted above—so be it.
We don‟t particularly care how you get to work, so long as there are options. This does not mean that incentives for car pooling, for attractive mass transit pricing, should not be attempted. But let us not expect major changes in behavior. We cautiously suspect that efficient cars are the way to go and think it‟s much more likely in 25 or 50 years that Americans will be zipping around in many super smart cars, versus waiting at the bus or train stop.
And what about the recalcitrant American who, despite smart cars and public transit options, insists on driving a SUV to work? Do we need to stage public demonstrations outside their house? Do we spit on them in the grocery store or pour oil on them (sort of like the fur-hating blood throwers?) Do we shun them from dinner parties? No, the principled conservative simply looks to economic incentives and not creating a better class of more socially conscious people (we‟ll leave that job to families and religion). Government on principle should not spend time on this. Public schools should focus on American cultural values, not creating little green jihadists. So let gas prices rise, tolls increase for usage at peak hours, bus lanes and small car lanes flourish—
and people can make their own decisions.
Let us acknowledge there is one environmental thing the government does very well. The principled conservative recognizes that it can set aside public lands for absolutely no economic purpose other than enjoyment and protection of habitat—“conservation is the political heritage of conservatives.”35 So yes, we do in fact like parks. The principled conservative never said that commercial interests should dictate how every acre of land on the planet should be utilized. Our representative government can make such determinations because citizens demand there be a balance of competing interests. This not to suggest it is an exact science.
However, time and experience have taught that open spaces such as parks not only enhance human enjoyment but also improve the overall community for both business operations and residential living.