Comments Posted By sjohnson104
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
WHY DO CONSERVATIVES SEE RED WHEN OBAMA TALKS GREEN?
This is a good article paraphrasing the history of environmentalism and the right, how it's no longer associated with the "modern conservatives," conservatives, that is, that you might find in Congress today. I believe your contradiction in conservation and conservatism is well thought out (see rep.org, Republicans for Environmental Protection for more).
Now, at the risk of being lambasted, I think you miss the mark when you believe cap-and-trade to be a potentially disastrous boondogle. Sure, you can argue that the UN, tree-hugging liberals, and anti-capitalists want to intervene in our economy. Kyoto was a terrible document. But to lump cap-and-trade in the same boat a liberal searching for a capitalistic villain taking advantage of (insert your grievance here) is flat wrong. You make yourself just as bad as that anti-capitalist.
First cap-and-trade is not as interventionist as you fear. What the EPA is currently advancing is interventionist, specifically its co2 regulations. The first cap-and-trade scenario to combat acid rain in the early 90s passed overwhelmingly in Congress (> or = to 85% voting in favor) and then signed by the first Bush. Cap-and-trade created a market. Sure, you could say the DOE's stimulus funding into new technologies could be considered picking winners and losers (you could say the same thing for some defense spending), but a cap-and-trade lets the market decide.
You flesh out some good criticism of the right and environmentalism, the left and its environmental agenda, but you miss the mark when you lump cap-and-trade into that category. Critics of it back in the 80s and early 90s believed that combating acid rain through cap-and-trade was going to cost over $1500 a year. It ended up costing 250$ a year (I forget the specific metric, but you can understand the point), and took less time to address than believed.
Comment Posted By sjohnson104 On 21.04.2009 @ 16:55
