A thorn in the side of the environmental movement in the last decade has been Ted Nordhaus, who has trumpeted "the death" of the movement in books published with co-author Michael Shellenberger, and sharply criticized environmental strategists. Together they lead a "green think tank" called The Breakthrough Institute which today calls for a revival of nuclear energy to combat global warming.
To avoid snark, will avoid commenting on their past attacks on the movment, and focus instead on a claim Nordhaus made in a recent interview with The Washington Monthly. To wit:
Ted Nordhaus: Republicans and conservatives are reconsidering where they are on a lot of issues right now, and climate is one of them. I think we’re going to start seeing them drop this purely denialist position and start defining a conservative position on climate change. That, I think, is going to be a lot of things that environmentalists hate—like nuclear and gas. But I would welcome that, because it would mean that conservatives were actually engaging the issue.
This reporter would also enthusiastically welcome Repbulican advocacy of any solution to the crisis of climate change, for the simple reason that until both parties in Congress agree we have a problem, we're not going to see meaningful legislative action on climate change.
But where is the evidence that the GOP is going to "drop this purely denialist thinking?" Well, it's true that thoughtful conservatives, have been thinking about the issue. For example, Andrew Bacevich earlier this year did call for a new "countercultural" conservativism that included the environment.
In February Bacevich wrote in The American Conservative that conservatives should advocate:
- "Protecting the environment from the ravages of human excess. Here most emphatically, the central theme of conservatism should be to conserve. If that implies subordinating economic growth and material consumption in order to preserve the well-being of planet Earth, so be it. In advancing this position, conservatives should make common cause with tree-hugging, granola-crunching liberals. Yet in the cultural realm, such a change in American priorities will induce a tilt likely to find particular favor in conservative circles."
That sounds like acting to restrain the worst of climate change. So: The response from the right to this prominent and respected advocate, speaking for conservative action to conserve the earth?
Zip. Zero. Nada. Not only did the idea not attract followers, it didn't even attract comment.
Why? Because most conservatives care more about their status in the group than the planet, and action to save the planet simply isn't popular on the right.
An unfair and defamatory claim? No, it's simply a fact, according to a Pew Research poll of Republicans. Pew's widely respected and reported poll revealed that conservatives are divided, and believe — by a 54% to 40% margin — that if anything the GOP should more conservative. The environment wasn't one of the top five issues, but the poll did ask respondents about a lot of different issues.
The poll question was: Do Republicans and GOP leaders need to "reconsider" their positions on various issues –immigration, Social Security, the environment, etc — to have a chance in a national electon? (Funny that the Pew poll used the exact same phrase Nordhaus did.)
The answer?
1% of Republicans thought the party needed to rethink its position on the environment.
One percent!
So why does Nordhaus think the GOP is going to advocate action on climate change?
It's an utterly wishful claim, given the disinterest of the party with which he identifies, and exactly the sort of fatuousness for which he criticizes the environmental movement.
Pitiful.
Kit Stolz 