Republicans Divided Over Warming

Global warming is, for some reason, a political issue. Like almost every part of American life, it has been hijacked by both political parties and used to energize their base of voters. Facts are skewed or ignored in order to incite more anger and confusion among the public.

I guess non-partisan issues just don't exist anymore.

Apparently global warming has been sliced and diced into so many political facets, even intra-party disputes have arisen.

Each Republican party presidential candidate has staked out a position on global warming. Some use the issue to make themselves appear more moderate, others use the issue to appear more conservative. For instance, John McCain is advocating both greenhouse gas emissions and higher fuel economy standards. Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney prefer "clean coal" and utilization of other alternative energy sources.

As if all of this wasn't confusing enough, the effort to court Christian voters has lead former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee to form a platform of morally responsible environmental conservation.

I think many of these Republican candidates are losing sight of the bigger picture in their attempt to gain control of the global warming issue. While it is admirable that they believe some action is needed to confront global climate change, what we need is less pandering and more substance. By exactly how much are we going to increase fuel efficiency standards and carbon emission caps? What standards are we going to apply in determining what constitutes "clean coal" or "renewable energy sources?" What does moral conservation actually mean?

This is 2007, we need substance and a comprehensive plan for confronting global warming, not more politiking over how one candidate's global warming stance makes him more or less conservative.

Read the article here.

1 comment:

  1. what we need is less pandering and more substance.

    The way to attack the problem is not to go from the premise that GW is caused by humans, because that's still not proven to be the case. What IS proven is that our dependence on foreign oil is detrimental to our national security, since so much comes from unfriendly nations.

    I suggest (as a conservative myself) that if one wants to attract conservatives to environmentalism, you have to speak their/our language. It really doesn't matter so much WHY we reduce environmental damage; what matters is actually doing it.

    I'm personally appalled that more of my fellow conservatives aren't anxious to find viable alternative energy sources to replace foreign oil, considering the situation in the world today. It's to my unending shame and frustration that people joke about their SUVs and other gas guzzlers; they do it to taunt the knee-jerk activists on the left, but they're unknowingly acting in direct opposition to American interests by simply ignoring the real issues. I guess my side has its own "useful idiots," too.