Big government is not necessary or even conducive to sustainability. As we argued in A Contract with the Earth, business and industry are already greener than government, and they are innovating at a faster pace as well. So we should work with business and industry, local governments, and nonprofit groups to develop stewardship that is fast, focused, and flexible. We should also favor public-private partnerships and grassroots solutions by local people who understand the issues on the ground. An example is the NEXT network of volunteer organizations and groups that monitor sea turtle nests during their breeding seasons on the Florida coastline.
The sincere commitment of green conservatives to better environmental standards and practices is one of the media’s best kept secrets. Green conservatives have to insist on a place at the environmental table. Above all, we should advance rational, responsible, and innovative solutions to help protect the natural resources that support all life on this planet. Effective environmental problem-solving requires the elbow grease and acumen of every political party in America. There are conservatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties; likewise, both Republicans and Democrats can be green.
CLEAN AMERICAN ENERGY
All nations unarguably require reliable, affordable energy for economic growth. This growth, in turn is an essential requirement for a healthy environment. A broad and green energy menu needs entrepreneurs rather than bureaucrats, incentives rather than regulation, markets rather than command and control, tax relief rather than litigation, and scientists rather than trial lawyers.
Other nations energetically locate and diversify their energy sources, while America shows inefficiency and timidity. Innovative and sustainable, a green conservative energy plan will allow us to lead the world in producing a wide array of sustainable energy technology and clean, renewable products.
Some industries are already moving in this direction. Our automobile industry has strongly committed to hybrid, hydrogen, and electric vehicles. Taking no federal stimulus money, Ford successfully developed a line of fuel-efficient cars that are highly competitive with Honda and Toyota. Fuel efficiency and cleaner emissions have become a winning green business strategy for Detroit.
But industry can’t act alone; the federal government must help—not by getting bigger, but by getting smaller. Namely, the government must remove its restrictions on access to our key energy sources. Perhaps the most inexplicable such restriction is the maze of regulations that effectively prevents the spread of nuclear power—a clean, cheap, zero-emission source of electricity.
Currently, only one nuclear plant is under construction in the United States, while forty-four are being built in other countries.2 Our leadership as a nuclear innovator is fading fast, as other countries pursue ways to overcome historical obstacles such as the waste problem. For example, Norway’s state-owned energy company Statkraft is investigating the use of thorium to fuel nuclear reactors. Thorium is considered a greener alternative to uranium and plutonium, as it produces only a tiny fraction of the hazardous waste created by uranium-fuelled reactors.
Aside from being cheap and carbon-free, nuclear power offers other benefits as well. For example, once a plant is operational, nuclear energy is a relatively inexpensive power source for producing hydrogen, which could hasten the development of hydrogen-fueled cars and, ultimately, a low-carbon economy based on hydrogen. Nuclear power stations could also power desalination plants at lower cost to mitigate future droughts.
With all this promise just from nuclear power, imagine the possibilities if we develop environmentally responsible ways to tap America’s full energy potential: natural gas, cleaner coal, domestic sources of offshore oil, and a wide array of renewable energy sources such as geothermal, biofuels, solar, and wind power. Other nations are pursuing these technologies, including China, so American innovation must be encouraged by tax incentives and public-private partnerships.
Much of this can be accomplished by eliminating red tape and facilitating active investments in new technology. This could bring about new, clean energy sources most people aren’t even aware of today. For example, a new high-temperature technology known as plasma gasification promises to provide a way to burn off landfill waste and provide energy for nearby industries and towns. New to the United States, this technology is already operating successfully in Japan. Gasification technology can also be utilized in the clean coal process by capturing carbon dioxide. Public-private partnerships in research and development will ultimately lead to other effective methods to turn environmental liabilities into community assets.
Local governments are already developing green conservative programs. An example is Grand Rapids, Michigan, which has rooftop gardens, rainwater cisterns, solar panels, and the highest per capita number of buildings that comply with the standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. The city plans to draw 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, mostly wind power, by 2020. Its residents are predominantly conservative and religious, deriving their environmental values from a Biblically inspired sense of stewardship.
THE BLAME GAME
The extremist environmental movement asserts that we will soon face global warming-induced environmental catastrophes that can only be avoided by forcing Western capitalist nations, especially America, to adopt devastating energy taxes, ruinous new environmental regulations, and a massive wealth transfer to developing countries. This mantra has become so popular, both among the American Left and abroad, that even Osama bin Laden in a recent recording thought he could win support by blaming the West for global warming.
This narrative fails to recognize that capitalist democracies are among the most environmentally conscious nations in the world. As a rule, the more socialist a nation becomes, the more the environment suffers—just look at the environmental degradation that characterized nearly every Cold War-era Communist nation. As we noted in A Contract with the Earth, wealth and freedom generally lead to better environmental practices; forests are declining in poor nations but expanding in wealthy ones.
The international Left relentlessly condemn our alleged overconsumption of energy and services. Sometimes they invoke the spurious statistic of “per-capita use of energy,” comparing us unfavorably with China and India. This is absurd. China and India are major industrial polluters and carbon emitters. But simply because their populations are so large, their per capita output is relatively small.
So, in formulating a comprehensive environmental policy, the first thing we should do is to ignore the unfair, anti-American critique of the Left. We must develop our own policy based on conservative principles. Under such a policy, America should be a leader in environmental philanthropy and foreign aid to countries facing environmental challenges. This aid would be given on a case-by-case basis to nations with pressing environmental problems and accountable plans for fixing them. Operating like a sound business, our international environmental aid will depend on prudent management and our national financial situation at any given time.
This system would be an alternative to the current demands for coercive international mandates. Our Constitution requires the people’s consent in matters of war and finance; no foreign or world government has the mandate to tax U.S. citizens to combat global climate change or any other environmental danger. In particular, a proposed global carbon tax, calculated and regulated by the United Nations, would violate our sovereignty and must be resisted.
History has repeatedly demonstrated the incredible generosity of the American people, American private enterprise, and American institutions. The United States is already a global leader in environmental philanthropy, whether it be responding to the Asian tsunami or the Haitian earthquake. We should prioritize environmental sustainability, both in America and across the globe, but we must not allow the Left to exploit the global warming panic in order to degrade our liberties and entwine us in a new, corrupt, international climate change bureaucracy that would undoubtedly be dominated by dictatorships and kleptocra
tic governments.
MORE SCIENCE, BETTER SCIENCE, NONPARTISAN SCIENCE: CLIMATE SCIENCE AND THE LESSONS OF Y2K
We have to be more skeptical of climate scientists and the UN-APPOINTED International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) given the revelations of the “climategate” incident, discussed in chapter eight. As demonstrated in the hacked emails, some of the world’s top climate scientists unprofessionally and unethically tried to silence critics and avoid disclosing their own data.
Sound science depends on constructive criticism and a rigorous system of peer review. That’s why the argument that global warming trends are “settled science” is so disturbing. In the academy, debates in every field rage for decades as trends and theories are revised according to new data. With the hockey stick trend in global warming now discredited and scientific climate models yielding hypothetical data at best, we are still debating the meaning of the information we have now. Unshakable predictions of a looming, carbon-induced doomsday look more and more like the anti-climatic Y2K panic.
The rational antidote to global warming hysteria is continued investigation into global climate change. Green conservatives should advocate better climate research through the National Science Foundation and other professional sources. To augment federal funding, privately funded prizes can help incentivize scientific breakthroughs. We could also offer prizes for breakthroughs in climate modeling, metrics, and measurement technology. Furthermore, we need fiscally responsible green conservatives who understand the need for more and better climate science to carefully scrutinize UN proposals, such as a recent demand for more than $60 billion to measure climate variables.
The American people should also continue to rely on the National Academy of Sciences to monitor progress in global climate change research. This is an incredibly intricate, fluid topic, notwithstanding the Left’s bogus claims that the science is settled. In fact, a 2010 article in the journal Nature by Olive Heffernan predicted that improving technology will cause scientists to admit to even greater uncertainty about the effects of climate change. The debate will really heat up when the next major IPCC report, due in 2013, moves beyond projected climate scenarios to consider explicit predictions.3
Although environmental radicals refuse to acknowledge it, we can prepare now to adapt to almost any future change in climate. Consider the argument made by Nigel Lawson in his book An Appeal to Reason: The only rational, practical and cost-effective policy response to global warming is to adapt to it if and when it occurs—that is, to act to prevent, or mitigate, any adverse consequences, while taking full advantage of the many beneficial consequences. This is manifestly the case, not least because the projected adverse consequences are simply the relatively marginal exacerbation of problems that already exist.4
Green conservatives should be skeptical, prudent, and smart. We must demand complete objectivity from our scientists and our policymakers. Our country is blessed with the world’s best graduate schools and a critical mass of brilliant scientists and engineers. If carbon overload should lead to major problems, our continuing investment in science and technology will give us the best chance of averting or adapting to the consequences.
A GREEN CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM
The next conservative U.S. government cannot ignore the environment. Conservative candidates must first convince centrists they can solve environmental problems, while the Left are only using the environment as an excuse for bigger government with higher taxes and more bureaucratic controls. Meanwhile, the conservative base should increase the visibility of its environmental positions.
For environmentalists of all persuasions, an optimal election is one in which both parties are equally committed to protecting the earth, while strenuously debating the right way to get it done. Conservatives must stop allowing the Left to own this issue. We must be prepared to offer an environmental agenda that breaks new ground and broadens the coalition of green conservatives. No one should be more committed to a healthy planet than green conservatives.
The green conservative platform should strive for a cleaner, greener world while protecting the freedom and dignity of all people and ensuring their right to a better economic future. Green conservatives seek a world where biodiversity is growing, not shrinking, and all ecosystems are vibrant and healthy. While some regulation will always be necessary, government intervention into our use of natural resources should not over-reach, nor should regulation violate citizens’ property rights.
Commerce and conservation can co-exist in harmony, with private philanthropy as the most powerful tool for biodiversity and habitat protection. Green conservatives should actively campaign for clean air and water, a non-toxic food chain, and the steady improvement of our quality of life.
The vision of a conservative conservation movement should be achieved through grassroots community networking. Green conservative action derives from the people, not the government. Green conservatives embrace flexibility, innovation, and speed while avoiding bureaucracy and red tape. Our commitment to future generations requires that we leave to them healthy oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams. Indeed, conservative core values require us to deliver to our children a world at least as bountiful and pristine as the one we inherited from our parents. Not only is this a moral imperative, it’s a winning political position.
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
An American Energy Plan
With Steve Everley, Energy Policy Manager for American Solutions
America suffers.
America has plenty of energy, but we send hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy we could be producing domestically. This raises energy prices at home, forcing companies to shift jobs overseas. In one recent small business meeting American Solutions hosted in Akron, Ohio, manufacturers cited rising energy costs as a major reason for laying off workers, downsizing operations, and in some cases closing factories.
Washington elites have artificially restricted American energy resources, ranging from a 25-year ban on offshore drilling (which was recently overturned formally but remains active in practice) to an unofficial ban on the expansion of nuclear energy to the encouragement of frivolous environmental lawsuits. The result has been an energy crisis created by environmental extremists, politicians, and bureaucrats who, for ideological reasons, favor high energy prices and severely limited energy consumption. They are willing to pay for this policy with foreign imports, killed American jobs, and substantial American reliance on foreign dictatorships. The vast majority of Americans—79 percent in an American Solutions survey—oppose this policy.
Ironically, many left-wing politicians advocate energy independence even as their own policies sabotage that goal. In fact, every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has rhetorically championed American energy, yet in the past thirty years we have become increasingly dependent on foreign energy.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Contrary to popular belief, America has more energy than any other nation on earth. All that’s keeping us from becoming energy independent is a lack of political will to do so.
Rather than picking winners and losers or paying off some industries by taxing others, our elected leaders should craft an energy policy based on a clear set of choices:• Do we value prosperity and happiness or punishment through taxes and regulation?
• Do we value national independence, or are we willing to remain vulnerable to blackmail from energy dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela?
• Do we prefer to keep our money here in America to create jobs and increase our standard of living, or are we comfortable sending hundreds of billions a year to foreigners for energy we could be producing here at home?
In an America that values both prosperity and happiness, both national security and the environment, we can have more energy and a stronger economy while protecting the environment. Indeed, a growing economy requires affordable and reliable energy, which means more energy consumption, not less.
In contrast, in an America tha
t values punishment through taxes and regulations, you will find high energy prices, less energy, and less economic growth.
Blessed with enormous energy reserves, America also has the scientists and engineers who could create unprecedented technological breakthroughs in all our energy sources. We must begin encouraging energy innovation, not discouraging energy production. As this chapter will show, we have both the resources and the capability to rapidly become energy independent.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS
America has more oil and natural gas than most people can even imagine. Unfortunately, our own politicians won’t let us use huge reserves of it.
Offshore we have an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and over 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, all of which was illegal to develop until Congress and the president let their offshore drilling bans expire amidst spiraling gas prices in 2008.
Onshore we have billions more barrels of oil, including potentially more than a trillion barrels locked away in shale in the Rocky Mountains. The Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is considered the largest shale oil deposit in the world, with an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil, or three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.1 But nearly all those deposits are unused, since federal law bans most drilling for shale oil.
We also have so much natural gas that even many industry experts cannot develop a top-end estimate. In addition to the hundreds of trillions of cubic feet located offshore, we have exponentially more locked away in ice. Known as methane hydrates, this frozen form of natural gas could make an enormous contribution to our energy independence: we have over 300,000 trillion cubic feet. To put that in perspective, if we could harness just 1 percent of that energy, we could satisfy America’s natural gas needs for more than 100 years.
To Save America Page 22
