Earth Day, Marxists, and Green Conservatives

It seems that I completely missed the whole "Earth Day" thing. I hadn't planned to miss it... it just sort of happened. Not that I would have known what to do on Earth Day anyways. I did notice the abundance of "green" signs around campus, shouting un-cited facts at me about taking shorter showers and the like. I did get a little sour when one sign, clearly giving up on the idea of promoting environmentalism with stats and reasoning, simply said "Recycle Dammit!"

That got me thinking-- not about recycling, mind you-- about the way environmentalists try to communicate with the rest of the American population. As conservatives, we aren't "against" the environment or "Green" issues, but we often find ourselves scoffing and disagreeing with environmentalists on the basis that they are often jerks. I'm not saying that all environmentalists are jerks, but thinking back to the more vocal, demonstrative enviros... yeah, I'd have to say they are. Mac Johnson, in his article You Da Man! on Human Events.com, writes:

Suppose you’re a jerk and you act like it for no reason. Why, I and others will all think you’re a jerk. But now, suppose you inform everybody that you are not just a jerk, you are angry for a cause, a good cause -- the sort of cause that makes you acting like a jerk entirely understandable, because you’re full of righteous indignation (as opposed to the petty kind.) You’re not a jerk at all; you’re a champion for some helpless Third Party, say, workers and peasants… or darters and pheasants. It doesn’t matter exactly, because you’re just too damn mad/concerned/upset/outraged/caring to piddle about details. My goodness, the Earth is in danger -- out of my way, idiot!

If someone is screaming at me "Recycle dammit!" my immediate response is "Don't tell me what to do." I'll recycle, sure, that's not the point. Anytime someone is cussed at in some imperative way, that person is usually inclined to react negatively. Because of this, Republicans and conservatives are viewed as anti-environment. We don't know how to react to the extreme environmentalists.

Right now, it's trendy to be "green." Our current culture is loving the idea of putting nature above Man. And the policies that environmentalists are fighting for may or may not help Mother Nature, but they will definitely hurt another environment: America. Johnson writes that these policies are essentially Marxist: "...Capitalism is exploiting the world, America is destroying the world, and the only solution is for the international intelligentsia to run the world."

The solutions the majority of environmentalists promote are ones of regulations and taxes. They have decided that the best way to save the world is to grow the government, punish businesses, and treat nature as an untouchable god, instead of a resource for Man. The argument has become polarized, one-sided, and often vicious (the global warming debate being just one facet of a larger discussion).

But it is possible to be both Republican and green. Teddy Roosevelt did it-- he created the first national parks. And Richard Nixon did it too-- he created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And New Gingrich writes in his latest article that it is imperative that conservatives express and understand the ways of "green conservatism" because it's certainly out there... and it's a better solution.

Newt outlines Green Conservatism like this:

• Green Conservatism favors clean air and clean water.
•Green Conservatism understands biodiversity as a positive good.
•Green Conservatism favors minimizing carbon loading in the atmosphere as a positive public value.
•Green Conservatism is pro-science, pro-technology and pro-innovation.
•Green Conservatism believes that green prosperity and green development are integral to the successful future of the human race.
•Green Conservatism believes that economic growth and environmental health are compatible in both the developed and developing world.
•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.

Some of those sound pretty basic, yet they are important to point out so that the myth of "conservative=nature hater" is erased. Rather than regulate and litigate companies into changing their ways, we need to provide them with incentives and rewards. Companies need to believe that they have to create a better, bio-friendly product in order to compete and be successful. Newt suggests offering prizes for companies to compete with government-led scientific research investments. Just look at how the X-Prize got private industries to have their own space race. The same prizes are being awarded for the next hybrids and gas alternatives.

We need to realize that America can compete globally, and eventually become more bio/eco-friendly than any other nation. But I assure you it won't be through punishing companies and growing the government. And it won't be through scaring people with end-of-the-world scenarios and anti-American-lifestyle slogans. It will be, as Newt points out, through entrepreneurialism, ingenuity, and free-market competition. That's what we do best, and that's how we'll save the planet.