Green Conservatism
At the risk of appearing obsessed with RedState, I have to comment on this. On the obsession - I have read RedState for a long time now - it’s just that lately (meaning the last few weeks) there has been a lot more going on there that is interesting. And, frankly, while the rest of the world is basking in recent liberal victories and boasting about a populace that is largely in tune with liberal ideology (even if the press still thinks Reagan is President), I’m still more interested in the factionalism that GW (the orgininal) warned us so fervently against, and the intellectual decline of American political thought, partly as a result of that factionalism.
On to the subject. Newt Gingrich was asked to guest blog at Redstate (after being “on the run” and “caving” during the Gingrich/Kerry debate). His post argues for a “green conservatism.”
I’m frankly disappointed that so much discussion, including Newts, went toward how the GOP can “win” environmentalism, and “own” it. There is lamentation that liberals (aka anti-capitalist nuts) “own” the issue now. I’m with them half-way. I don’t think liberals should own or win environmentalism. Currently, we hold a political advantage because we are seen to care about it (instead of, for instance, constantly telling fibs about the state of the science). I would rather have both “sides” fully on board on the issue, than for our “side” to win it. But, I would also rather have both “sides” fully on board with the issue than to have their side win it, too.
Maybe we’re closer than we think. Here’s Gingrich’s list of the values of Green Conservatism:
1. Green conservatism favors clean air and clean water.
2. Green conservatism favors maximum biodiversity as a positive good.
3. Green conservatism favors minimizing carbon loading in the atmosphere as a positive public value.
4. Green conservatism is pro-science, pro-technology, and pro-innovation.
5. Green conservatism believes that green prosperity and green development are integral to the successful future of the human race.
6. Green conservatism believes that economic growth and environmental health are compatible in both the developed and developing world.
7. Green conservatism believes that we can realize more positive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than is possible from litigation and regulation.
Well, it doesn’t take a genius to see that points 1-6 are nearly identical to “envrionmentalism” period - no political classification needed. Only point on point #7 is there anything to distinguish these values from just plain old environmentalism the way liberals do it or the way non-political people do it. Point #7 is a bit of an oddball… it’s uniquely conservative in that such beliefs are a product of conservative political ideology.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Really, #7 is just a conservative ideological take on what measures should be taken to protect the same values (#s 1-6) that any environmentalist holds. Should the conservative view at least be amenable to a more robust philosophy on how to solve these problems than this one pithy sentence indicates, then they don’t just have a right, but a responsibility to put forward their best notions on how to solve the problem.
But that is the problem. It’s partly the problem of conservative ideology, which unfortunately has a simplistic view of how the market works. It seems to me also to be partly the problem of modern conservatism which doesn’t care enough about a problem to think deeply (or sacrifice corporate even tiny amounts of corporate profits in the short term) to get serious about solving it.
An illustration can be presented from the point itself. First Gingrich cites tax incentives - something moderate liberals have never had much objection to - as a means of fixing the problem. Certainly it’s smart to consider them, and probably to implement them in many cases. On the other hand, there is only so much you can do with a tax incentive, especially when your philosophy of government is to make taxes completely painless for corporations to begin with. The idea that tax incentives alone will solve our environmental problems is like the notion that military aggressiveness alone will solve all our foreign policy problems. They won’t. They are one tool in the bag. The only other idea that “green conservatism” brings to the table is “shifting market behavior”. This can be read in one of two ways, both yielding an entirely vacuous idea. First is as a gerund phrase, as in “The shifting market behavior we expect to see will solve the problem”. I don’t think this is what he means, but if it is, then it is akin to magical thinking. Markets respond to pressures, either in supply and demand. Greenness is not a commodity; there is very little market demand for it. Those who make up the market desire it, but they do not purchase it at the grocery store. The market is focused on price, quality, and consumption. There will always be a few hippies willing to invest in fair-trade coffee, or live as vegetarians for green causes. It is unlikely that the market at large will follow these hippies, even though the rest of us desire environmental security, too. The other interpretation is that Gingrich means for his conservative allies to actively shift market behavior. Good luck on that one. I mean, yes - good advertising campaigns can have an effect (but who is going to run them; pay for them?) However, conservatives know enough about the market to know that it has a mind of its own, and isn’t going to be pushed around to any relevant degree by a political movement. To pretend it will - as a conservative - is just facile.
Don’t get me wrong. I welcome the conservative ideology at the table of environmentalism. Environmentalism means you care about the environment - not that you care about the environment when it suits your politics. If Gingrich wants to offer tax incentives for environmental sustainability - I say go for it (we’ll be watching though - if the tax incentives amount to give-aways for doing absolutely nothing, then we’ll have an argument on our hands)…. If Gingrich wants to follow Nancy Reagan’s footsteps and start a “just say ‘no’ to carbon emissions” ad campaign - go for it. If Gingrich wants to gut the clean air act? That’s not “green conservatism”. That’s anti-environmentalism. Environmentalists should make room for lots of ideas at the table. It should not rule out tax incentives. It should not rule out ad campaigns featuring iron skillets with eggs that illustrate our planet on CO2 forcing. It should not rule out regulation about how a corporation can pollute our air and water. If and when it does start ruling these things out, it ceases to be environmentalism and starts being partisanship.
With environmentalism done right, everybody wins. With environmentalism enslaved to political ideology, special interests win, and everybody else loses.
That’s all.
