A blog for green conservatives

I welcome Republican recognition of environmental problems, but I'm skeptical about the compatibility of current Republican ideology and environmental conservation. In the Whit Ayers piece on Terra Rossa (or in the article linked from there - both are pretty sparse) Ayers praises the environmental legacy of GOP presidents T. Roosevelt and Nixon.

TR, however, placed enormous amounts of land off-limits to resource extraction and development, which seems very much against the modern GOP idealogy. That TR was able to do so then is largely due to the sparse population in the primarily western states where the national parks were created.

Nixon, of course, allowed the creation of the EPA and didn't veto the Endangered Species Act, which produced tons of red tape and have both been the target of radical free-market idealogues - largely Republicans and (almost?) never Dems - ever since.

Most environmental problems stem from the "tragedy of the commons", where individuals have no compelling reason to limit their use of common resources and each individual use of common resources seems insignificant when viewed by itself. I'm dying to hear the market-based approaches that will meaningufully address tragedy of the commons issues. The most obvious are cap-and-trade solutions, which are appropriate only when monitoring is possible and increased pollution in one area can be meaninguflly compensated by decreased pollution in another. (Carbon is certainly a candidate.) Thing is, most Democrats support cap-and-trade legislation. What can Republicans add to the mix of market based solutions that Democrats can't just say "Hey, great idea! Me too!"?

Entrepreneurship is lovely as well, but how can entrepreneurs compete in a marketplace so full of entrenched interests, established habits and infrastructure developed to support polluting technologies? Subsidies are one good way, but apparently thats not GOP friendly. Taxing bad environmental practices are another, but thats not GOP friendly. Funding higher education to engage in partnerships with business to develop new technologies is one way, but increased funding of higher education requires government spending and likely more taxes.

I think most environmental problems require significant government action, which is a major problem for the current Republican party. They've preached the evils of government and the virtues of economic self-interest so long that when a problem arises that requires government action they're left unable to advocate the full course of required fixes, which in my mind include both acceptable market-based and entrepreneurial solutions, and unacceptable (to the GOP) regulation and taxes.

If the environment overtakes national security in the national conscience, Republicans will have to change an awful lot to be competitive even after the Bush hangover ends. I suggest ditching the party and starting a crunchy-con party. I'll even vote for you when the Dems nominate mediocre candiates and you don't get all Christian-Sharia on me.

Ron Paul's take on the environment sounds Whit-like:
1)enforce property rights (you don't have the right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, or property, period.)
2)stop government collusion with big corporate interests (most pollution that happens in this country is *legal* and codified by lawmakers paid off by big-money corporate lobbyists)
3)end corporate welfare and restore truly free markets so that alternative energy/environmentally friendly technologies can actually compete

What's striking to me about Terra Rossa is their wholehearted support for a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions. Could this become a consensus position across the political spectrum?

Not bloody likely. As PJ O'Rourke observed years ago, harnessing the market to trade emissions implies (for hardcore left-greens) a "right to pollute," and they want pollution to be evil more than they want it reduced. Don't bother them with facts showing that cap-and-trade has been effective where it has been tried: it just doesn't fit with their theology.

Most environmental problems stem from the "tragedy of the commons", where individuals have no compelling reason to limit their use of common resources and each individual use of common resources seems insignificant when viewed by itself.

I'm going into my 4th year working i water quality and I'm continually amazed at the ignorance of a great majority of people.

Joe Public "Why can't I just dump my used motor oil on the ground, it's my property?"

Me: "Because it will get into the groundwater"

J: "So?"

Me: "Groundwater flow, unfortunately, doesn't recognize your property line"

J: "Oh, I never thougt of that"

I think most environmental problems require significant government action, which is a major problem for the current Republican party. They've preached the evils of government and the virtues of economic self-interest so long that when a problem arises that requires government action they're left unable to advocate the full course of required fixes, which in my mind include both acceptable market-based and entrepreneurial solutions, and unacceptable (to the GOP) regulation and taxes.

Bingo. Market-based solutions might work after the market is created by the government. That means taxing cars with low gas mileage, that means impact fees for new houses based on the estimated energy use of said houses, that means a steadily tightening market of pollution credits which means the price keeps increasing, and so on.

And it means subsidies and rebates and the government covering early-adopter costs to get the ball rolling. As I've said before, right now the government should start putting solar panels up on all its buildings. Yes, it won't save any money, and it might even take more energy than it uses, but the point isn't that, the point is to drive down the manufacturing cost of solar power, to overcome the early-adopter penalty in price. So that when people are building their home, they have a cost-effective choice.

As I am, in fact, on the left side of things, you'll notice I suggested taxing businesses that don't reduce, but rewarding people when they do reduce. Obviously, this could be a point where the left and right differ, but it isn't actually that important how we do it, we just need to set up some sort of system that makes pollution no longer free, and makes non-clear energy more expensive than clean energy. While making sure we aren't crippling both people and businesses with costs too quickly. And then the market can step in and handle it.