The GOP’s Environmental Backlash
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 5/26/08 @ 5:48 pm - Filed Under Local Politics, National Politics
A couple of weeks ago councilman Mitch Harper sent out a press release about “Ride to Council Day” and rode his bicycle to and from the city council meeting. I’ve been wanting to write about this for a while but in a broader context that encapsulates part of why the Republican party is on the outs with the electorate. Harper’s environmentally conscience approach to government is praiseworthy but also atypical of many elected Republicans.
For many years the far-right of the Republican party have chastised those on the left that pushed environmental issues labeling them “tree hughers”, “environmental wackos” and “granola eaters”. Obviously there have been Luddites, anti-corporate protesters and others who did push environmentalism to the fringes of society, but many Republicans seemed to object to responsible environmentalism and policies that supported clean air and water, recycling programs and clean energy initiatives. And in their efforts to paint all the environmentally conscience with the same broad brush they have begun to experience an environmental backlash from the electorate.
Voters, especially young voters, see the environment and its resources as something we should strive to care for and not simply exploit. I recently returned from the Republican-heavy state of Utah, and what I saw there was a body of people that cared deeply about the environment. They want to be able to hunt, fish, hike and camp without having to deal with the nasty side effects of industrial and individual pollution. And it was during this trip that I realized how out-of-touch the anti-environment wing of the Republican party has become - they no longer speak for their own base.
The vast majority of people in this country care about their environment and will vote to defend it. Unless the Republican party begins to follow the example set by Harper and others like him they will soon start to find their numbers diminishing in even Western parts of the United States. States like Colorado, Montana, Idaho, New Mexico and yes even Utah will continue to elect more and more Democrats to state and national positions…
Polling data on this topic can be found at PollingReport.com
Comments
31 Responses to “The GOP’s Environmental Backlash”
Leave a Reply
I agree with the part of this post that says that the GOP has been “generalized” by the media as being anti-environment. The reality is something completely different.
I used to work in the nuclear power industry. The nuclear power industry in this country is the cleanest and safest way for us to generate power.
The “environmentalists” and their allies in the Democratic Party destroyed nuclear power to such a point that we have not built a new nuclear power plant in decades due to a massive media campaign that completley misled the American people on nuclear power.
The Democrats were 100% complicit with discrediting and destroying the nuclear power industry in the US.
Heck President Bush tried to dedicate money to revitalize nuclear power with this year’s State of the Union address and Nancy Pelsoi said that increasing nuclear power was a “non-starter.” Notice that the legislation has gone nowhere.
Does anyone reading this comment think that the Democrats did not destroy the nuclear power industry in the US?
Realize I worked in the American nuclear power industry for eight years…
Mike Sylvester
Mike,
I disagree with this 100%. There’s much more to environmentalism than nuclear power. The reality is there has been a certain section of the Republican party (talk radio comes to mind) that has consistently bad-mouthed any policy remotely environmental.
Being an environmentally conscience Republican is likely to get you ostracized as quickly as being a gay Republican…
You are talking about a perception; not a reality.
Name five environmental policies the Democrats have passes since they swept into power in the 2006 elections…
P.S. I agree that nuclear power is just one aspect.
I am quite in favor of the environment; however, there are many things that I disagree with “environmentalists” (And many Democratic politicians about).
1. Nuclear power is safe and should be used in the USA.
2. We must consider that limiting greenhouse gases in the USA does NO GOOD AT ALL unless all other countries (Especially China and India) agree to curtail theirs.
3. I am all in favor of alternative fuels that make sense. For example I oppose ethanol since it does not make sense from an economic standpoint nor does it make sense from an environmental standpoint.
Mike Sylvester
Good grief where should I start. How about with our own Republican governor:
It’s important to note that the governor was on the wrong side of public opinion on every single one of these. I’m sure I could find more at the state level and I could find numerous examples at the national level. And let’s not forget that President Bush and his backers have become known for their anti-science agenda. And this speaks nothing of the Republican party’s general disdain for anything about global warming…
note: The above examples come from stories linked at Blue Indiana who have chronicled the governor’s anti-environment stances quite well…
Mike,
I like how you blame Democrats.
How about this- Just a few years ago we had a Republican Senate, House and Bush in the White House.
Why the hell didn’t the Republican’s fix this issue then??
Jeff:
You switched from the Federal level to the State level for some reason. The Demcorats swept to power in 2006 on the Federal level and I was asking you to list five items they have passed in the last year and a half to improve the environment… That being said:
1. If 31 States have decided to track greenhouse gases I have no problem with that. I believe in States rights. I bet many of those 31 states are controlled by Republicans! This point actually helps illustrate my point better then yours.
2. Good for Michigan if it wants to reduce Mercury emmissions… I tend to think we should reduce mercury emmissions if we can do it without outsourcing more of our manufacturing jobs.
3. I do not know much about dumping in the Calumet river; however, I will give you this one. I agree that Mitch Daniels made an environmentally unhealthy choice with this one. I could easily do some quick research and list Democratic Governors all over this Country who have done the exact same thing.
4. This also helps illustrate my point better then yours. Most in Congress, Democrats AND Republicans were against this project. In your original post you were condeming the NATIONAL Republicans not Mitch Daniels. For some reason you have changed and have decided to attack Mitch Daniels. Is it possible you cannot find five items the Democrats have done since taking over Congress that improve the environment?
I agree that Mitch Daniels has made some poor environmental decisions.
The final part of your comment makes even less sense and comes straight from the media and is NOT based in reality:
“And let’s not forget that President Bush and his backers have become known for their anti-science agenda. And this speaks nothing of the Republican party’s general disdain for anything about global warming…”
You are just repeating talking points from the far left. Global Warming is not a fact; it is a possibility. I believe in science and the truth of the matter is that a large number of scientists beleive in global warming and a large number do not believe that global warming is a problem.
Heck you and I have discussed the issue before and I remember you saying you were not sure if Global Warming was a problem or not.
Mike Sylvester
Kevin Knuth:
You should read the post and the comments prior to inserting meaningless partisan comments…
Nowhere in any of my posts do I say the Republicans are perfect on environmental issues; because, they are not.
Instead I am disagreeing with Jeff’s post where he is saying the Democrats and good on environmental issues and the Republicans are bad.
Mike Sylvester
I never made such a comment. I might question the severity but not the premise that it’s a problem - and a major one at that.
I used our governor as an example because he’s essentially the leader of the state Republican party. It’s obviously more difficult to find state level abuses than national and yet I listed 4 in a matter of 5 minutes.
Your comments on global warming really make my point for me.
That’s simply inaccurate and can only be characterized as a WOWO talking point.
The Republicans have a poor environmental record and they will pay the price because of it…
Mike,
Here’s the most devastating part:
I don’t see “enviromentalism” as synonmous with concern about global warming, about which there is serious disgareement within the scientific community.
Jeff,
Actually you did make that comment or one like it. To be more specific I beleive you said that you felt that there was some indications of global warming; however, you weren’t sure if they were part of the natural cycle or due to greenhouse gases.
I agree 100% that the public perceives the Demcorats are stonger on environmental issues.
Heck look at Hillary Clinton’s campaign where she continually claims that her policies will create 5 MILLION green collar jobs. Her claims are absurd and are not based on ANY facts. Yet, the public perceives her as being environmentally friendly because she makes absurd claims like creating five million green collar jobs.
Mike Sylvester
Jeff,
What on Earth is inaccurate that a large number of scientists do not beleive global warming is a problem?
My point is a well documented fact not a WOWO talking point.
Come on Jeff; you know darn well that a large number of scientists do not think Global Warming is a problem.
You also know that not too long ago many scientists thought we had a global cooling problem.
Mike Sylvester
Let me be very clear - I would have never made any such statement. I have spent 5 years of my career working on CO2 measurement technology and I’m very familiar with current vs historical levels. There is absolutely no way possible that current CO2 levels are part of some natural cycle and there isn’t a legitimate scientist that would argue that point.
What I might’ve said is that it’s unclear why CO2 levels have skyrocketed but temperature increases have been relatively mild. There still is some debate about that.
Your point that a large number of scientists do not think global warming is a problem is not well documented. Please find me a peer-reviewed journal that has a single paper stating such a conclusion - good luck…
Wow you guys are really going at it. For what it’s worth I am going to add my 2 cents. Let it be known that I am an Independent, and I won’t vote or support someone with out knowing their history and record, not just what they claim.
I have been a volunteer or paid activist/environmentalist since I was 16. I have met many of the great environmental leaders in this county and world. Not that long ago I spent a week hanging with the folks from Canada/US that wrote and created the Great Lakes Compact. But most of the people I meet are everyday citizens as I am on the streets trying to work with them on environmental efforts.
I don’t know if you believe in evaluation processes, statistics, and demographics. In the case of grassroots canvassing “trying to reach all citizens door-to-door” All across the board in this country. It has been taught to environmentalists/activists that you are out there canvassing and that this is a by-partisan effort but that only 1/6 of the people you talk to and financially support are going to be Republican. So even though this is a small number, you need to keep all actions bi-partisan and equal. You can find this info and training platform with any canvassing office. Whether or not they will honestly answer and give up that information sense it is highly sensitive is another thing. So if activists should be sensitive before Bush bashing because of 1/6th, who makes up the other 5/6.
I have heard some outrageous, insulting, and ignorant comments while on the streets all in right wing defense of ethics and virtue. I don’t argue, I just let them self defecate and let myself have an ironic laugh inside and try not to let it bring me down emotionally.
You know, originally 1800’s Republicans were the leaders and starters of the schools and actions of environmentalism, ecology, and conservation. But somewhere down the road the parties flipped, and when the generation whose purpose was to bring us back to sustainable methods rose up. They found support by the Democrats so in turn melded. It doesn’t take a social anthropologist to tell you that the Democrats have more intelligence and foresight on environmental issues. There the ones that host the environmental leaders. But let me tell you, most environmental leaders don’t care for politics or particular parties “In less it’s the Green Party.” Because we all still have to fight with both parties to get things through and we carry a nature based ethic which is more universal and sees past party systems.
I am tired of seeing this debate of each saying who’s right and who’s wrong. Point is environmental campaigns in the past 50 years has been on the backs of Independents and Democrats, and I am tired of seeing the initiatives fail because it takes the Republicans too. If the parties could just see past their differences for the benefit of the Earth and all of mankind then we might actually be successful and it would be such an issue and a dark future. I’m tired of groups losing sight of goals because they want to have a **** measuring contest.
It starts here boys, the same thing has happened here, you guys are now doing the same party bash routine I have seen take over and kill nearly every great initiative, conversation, or action that I saw was moving in a positive direction. The point of this discussion was to see what the Republicans could do to catch up environmentally and what could get them on the ball and participatory. Which is exactly what needs to happen and what has stopped environmental stewardship from being the norm. Let’s keep this rolling in a positive and cooperative direction for once.
God grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
1st Step for Republican environmental recovery - Overcome denial and accept that their programming makes the environment unmanageable -
2nd Step for Republican environmental recovery. - Understand that the Earth is a power greater then themselves and that sustainability could restore Republicans to sanity.
3rd Step …. Ok now we’re getting ahead of ourselves.
Ok now its time someone should bring up a topic I can bash the Democrats on, trying to equal things out here and please take no offense by my odd humor I was just trying to get out some truth from my experience.
The below link will take you to a large number of credible scientists who do not feel Global Warming is the problems that many on the “left” think it is:
Note, you still have not posted five examples of Federal legislation the new Democratic Majority have passed. Please include examples that a majority of Republicans opposed…
Mike Sylvester
The link is missing - just like the “number of credible scientists who don’t feel Global Warming is a problem”.
I’ll take the time to find your examples Mike - it won’t be hard. Let me throw one out off the top of my head - increasing fuel efficiency for automobiles. Republicans did absolutely nothing about this.
There’s a reason that Derek and the vast majority of the population see the Republican party as anti-environment and it isn’t because they’ve all been duped by some grand media conspiracy. It’s simply because Republicans have been bad on the environment.
BTW, see if you can find one single peer-reviewed study saying global warming isn’t a problem…
Derek,
It’s simply not possible with the modern Republican party as you can see from the previous comments. Everything boils down to some media conspiracy or “two sides to the story”. Republicans are anti-environment and they will continue to lose favor with voters because of it…
Here is the link to the Senate minority report that includes some very credible scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=de6a54bf-802a-23ad-45ed-60ae6f3febe2
I knew you would mention CAFE standards and I tend to agree with you on this one. The Democrats have been much stronger on CAFE standards than the Republicans…
That is one; only four more to go…
I would further challenge you to come up with actual environmental policies proposed by Democrats that will work. I remember a few weeks ago when Hillary Clinton was promising to create five million new green-collar jobs. Give me a break.
Mike Sylvester
Thanks.
Just as a note the Senate Environment committee was chaired (until 2006) by Oklahoma Republican Senator Inhofe - a well known global warming denier…
Quoting John Kay
“The danger of environmental evangelism is that ritual, gesture and rhetoric take the place of substance”.
http://www.johnkay.com/political/479
“The danger of environmental evangelism is that ritual, gesture and rhetoric take the place of substance”.
I am guilty as charged. Early I was just trying make that point that environmental stewardship is an issue that is above and beyond what political party you are in. It is a community issue.
I need to start bashing myself now. Early I stated that in canvassing 1/6 contributors were Republicans. Well this was based on my living experience in the field during the years 2002 & 2003. I called a friend whom currently is in the field and takes evaluation demographics says that today participation is around 3/8’s which is a sustancial raise. You also got to consider that a canvas is generally a progressive practice and aren’t supported by conservatives often because they feel that the canvas doesn’t have their interest fairly in mind due not for the issue but the practice in its self. Its a social stigma issue, not whether or not they are good with the environment.
Plus canvas demographics can’t be trusted for census. For instance canvasses usually work only in urban area’s and are unable to sustain a canvas in rurual area’s due to economics. Rural has to be done by volunteers and now a paid staff if it is to be done. A canvas has to hit so many doors to have a contribution level that justifies the job due to overhead vs intiative funding.
The point I’m getting to is most farmers, are good environmental stewards and most farmers are Republicans.
Another good example is Hunters, there isn’t enough wild environment to support large numbers of wildlife “its unfortunate I know,” and well Hunters sustain a balance, and in practice general and naturalists that do all they can for environmental measures and conservation. Most Hunters I have met, are Republican.
I honestly believe that the main stem of the problem is that elected Republican officials “generally at the top” don’t have their constituants interests in mind. There are too many conflicting agendas like money in the fossil fuel and the military machine not the direct citizens themselves. There are some elected officials that are very green but at the same time, still support the oil industry. Lugar is a Republican and is very green minded and supportive of such initiatives. He has most all the meat and bones of the environmental issues. Very well I would say.
I guess the final peice of advice would have to be to require an environmental ethic in the officials you elect. If the party it self starts supporting the environment more you will attract the environmental leaders just the same as the left. I know many successful environmental professionals that the only reason they are Democrat is due to the party’s support on the issues. We are stewards of the earth and that has status over partys. We are like water, we choose the path of less resistance. Democrats have been supportive, so they attract the environmentalists. So in effect, Democrats get all the green credit.
If you’re want to see a comprehensive list (2001-2004) of President Bush’s rollbacks and anti-environmental stances then just go here. There’s literally way too much information for me to post here.
But don’t take my word for it - here’s a quote from the founder of the Republicans for Environmental Protection:
I could go on and on.
Let us also not forget that Richard Nixon started the EPA and NOAA, signed the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. Of course he also wanted universal healthcare. It was simply a different Republican party back then, filled with liberal nutjobs like Nixon…
And your list of scientists that don’t think global warming is a problem?
There is scientific consensus on global warming - as much as there ever will be. It is overwhelming and indisputable. Inhofe is a bozo and has absolutely zero credibility.
Frankly, this is a tired debate. The vast majority of those arguing don’t know anything about it…
Wow Jeff, you need to take a very deep breath and back away from your computer because you still have NOT answered my challenge.
I asked you to name five initiatives the Democrats have passed since they swept to power in 2006.
In your entire list you named ONE item (CAFE standards).
Instead you listed a bunch of environmental things that the Republicans did that you disagree with. I could do through the years when the Democrats were in power and come up with a list that is even longer then the one you listed!
For the last time, name five initiaives the Demcorats have passed in the last year and a half to improve the environment. The Democrats have a majority in Congress and have failed to do anyting for the environemnt when you look at the legislation they have passed.
You are making my point for me; the Democrats have done almost nothing to improve the environment; instead, they just tell all of America that they are in favor of the environment and when elected; they do absoultely nothing except make empty promises.
Mike Sylvester
Jeff is drinking the kool-aid.
Jeff,
And the list of scientists who support the theory of global warming can be similarly whittled down; however, I certainly agree with you that more scientists seem to believe in global warming than those who oppose it.
Your points about Nixon are true and certainly illustrate that many Republicans are in favor of the environment and have passed laws in favor of the enviornment.
The Democrats have done NOTHING to help the environment since they swept to power in 2006; they are just a bunch of hot air…
Mike Sylvester
That was 35+ years ago. Like I said the party has changed. Nobody believes Republicans are pro-environment, nobody…
Give me a break. I listed those laws because they were opposed by Democrats and were horrible pieces of legislation supported by the Republican Party.
You really expect the congress to have passed 5 ground-breaking pieces of environmental legislation in less than 18 months?
The Republicans had 12 years and did nothing but whittle away at the environment every chance they had. This argument is pointless, nobody believes the Republican party is strong on the environment - nobody, not even Republicans. I simply think your Libertarian philosophy of blaming both parties equally is driving your argument…
Jeff,
No what is driving my argument is the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have EQUALLY passed environmentally unfriendly laws for a long time.
For the last 18 months the Democrats have sat on their hands and done nothing.
My expectation is that they will win the Fall elections and do the same thing…
By the way, I never said the Republicans were good on the environment.
What I am saying is neither Party is good on the environemnt; however, the media perceives the Democrats to be good on the environemnt; which is not true.
Mike Sylvester
Fair enough Mike. You and I will obviously have to agree to disagree on this topic, but I appreciate the discussion…