Buddy never had trouble persuading groups to pay attention to things he told them to look at.
This summer we’re bombarded by news stories and images of extreme flooding, massive wildfires, pervasive smoke, and other increasing damage. The effects of warming seem to be harder and harder to deny.
So why do a large portion of Americans want nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions?
It’s easy to see what the Republican party wants to (not) do about climate change if they gain control in Washington. Their Project 2025 Plan for the first few months of an all-Republican Washington has them eliminating most of the Environmental Protection Agency, plus three agencies in the Department of Energy that are crucial to the current sustainables transition.
I’ve been searching for the justifications of their strong desire to stop reducing emissions. These fall into several categories.
Local economic pain
Proposals that impose a cost on carbon will hurt American families.
[Climate activists] attack not just the fossil fuels but the very people who, for decades, have sacrificed their health and their safety for us.
I believe the science must be firmly grounded before we take any actions that could seriously cripple many sectors of our economy.
Socialism and big government
Our best future won’t come from Washington schemes or socialist dreams.
Big government, one-size-fits-all proposals that threaten our economy are not the answer.
Comparison with other countries
Our natural gas is about 40 percent cleaner than Russia’s. Why aren’t we replacing Russian natural gas with U.S. natural gas [overseas]?
Climate change is a global issue and China, not the United States, is the greatest immediate obstacle to reducing world emissions.
Technology or natural processes will save us
With innovative technologies, fossil fuels can and should be a major part of the global solution. Practical and exportable answers can be found in innovation embraced by the free market.
People who are putting billions of dollars into things like carbon sequestration and hydrogen and direct air capture are the very people who employ some of the brightest engineers and scientists in the world to solve this problem.
Why are we demonizing the fossil-fuel industry, who is talking about carbon sequestration, direct-air capture. They may beat everybody else to net zero.
This Trillion Trees Initiative is a forward thinking approach that works with the private sector.
They have a Plan
Unknown to most of us, there’s a 900-page 400-author Project 2025 Plan published last April by the Heritage Institute. Without mentioning greenhouse emissions, it’s a disjointed melange of arguments against Washington’s efforts to reduce fossil fuel use.
The new energy crisis is caused not by a lack of resources, but by extreme ‘green’ policies. Under the rubric of ‘combating climate change’ the Biden Administration, Congress, and various states are changing America’s energy landscape. These ideologically-driven policies are also directing huge amounts of money to favored interests and making America dependent on adversaries like China for energy.
Nowhere does Project 2025 indicate that conservatives perceive any danger from carbon emissions. But it gives details of how Americans should ignore it and detailed steps our governments, federal and state, must take to quash sustainable energy.
The underlying reason
As some of their reasoning implies, Republicans have redefined climate change to be a political threat as opposed to an earth science problem. A conservative politician might come to believe Amerians must fight emissions and that government action is needed to do this. But such a politician cannot express these new convictions without being severely attacked by Congressional colleagues and constituents. Hey, after all this liberal woke agenda is far more dangerous than global warming!!
What we can do
Can those of us who want dramatic fossil fuel reductions help persuade any Republican lawmakers to vote differently? Probably not. But we can work with existing conservative efforts to change the minds of Republican voters. Although not widely known, there are conservative groups that are pushing Congress to get serious about climate change. Some have state chapters or affiliates. It might be useful for us to join and spend time with members of these and others.
They all promote ‘market-based approaches,’ and none of their efforts are aimed directly at fossil fuel emissions. But joining some efforts of theirs might be useful, for instance tree-plantings or field trips with members of Congress to see climate-related impacts in their districts. It may be easier in these groups to get talking with conservative neighbors—easier than approaching them directly or tackling them from within liberal groups. Maybe through one or more of their organizations we can find common cause on climate actions.
Our chances of success?
We need to do more than we may realize.
As I read the dramatic actions in Project 2025 to hobble the fight against climate change, it’s easy to think, “It could never happen; there’s no way there are enough Americans who would favor this.”
But then I remember I thought the same thing about the possibility of Trump being elected. Or the chances that, against a strong majority of public opinion, half of American states could stamp out abortion rights.
We need to view the conservatives who are attacking renewable energy as capable and dangerous opponents—heavily funded, working at all levels across America, melding the issue into other conservative shibboleths.
Understanding their plans and how strongly they’re being promoted is critical to heading off those actions.
The next ClimateDog will be a collection of tips on how to talk with conservatives about climate - after each of us has found a setting in which to exchange ideas.
We can read summaries of the climate-related elements of Project 2025 in The Guardian’s ‘Project 2025’: plan to dismantle US climate policy for next Republican President,’ in the Environmental Health News article, ‘Battle plan: How the far right would demolish climate programs,’ or in the document itself.
Here are some thoughts on The Trillion Trees Initiative.
Sources of the justification sentences above can be found by searching for them online. Most come from members of Congress.
Thanks David! For doing the research and usefully summarizing the views of climate denial…and what were up against politically, socially,environmently…existentially. I look forward to the followup and thoughts about how to talk to “them.” Although, I’m not sure, even with the right words, I’ll be effective in the conversations you might suggest with people who…what? Have their heads buried in the burning sands? Who believe that government regulation, action, and financing are evil.
Great column David. But how about focussing on Independents and DEMOCRATS. I think its crucial to galvanize Democratic voters. New York is the Bluest state around and yet we sent 5 FIVE Republicans to CONGRESS, making the current chaos possible.