It may seem hard to believe now, but in the not-too-distant past, support for environmental protections and conservation efforts was bipartisan. Among Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt was a pioneer on the environment; Dwight Eisenhower established the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Richard Nixon created the EPA; and George H.W. Bush adopted an ambitious cap-and-trade policy to combat acid raid.
But as the GOP has shifted to the far-right, Republican hostility towards the environment has grown. It's reached the point at which, this week, Republicans for Environmental Protection has decided to change its name -- dropping the party label altogether.
The group is now ConservAmerica. One of its top officials, David Jenkins, said the changes are largely related to branding -- the group is even keeping the green elephant mascot -- explaining that this is simply about "putting the emphasis more on connecting conservation and conservative." He also rejected the notion that his party is anti-environment.
...Republicans have declared war on the EPA, with top GOP presidential candidates at odds even with the Tea Party in their promises to strip the agency of federal funding. After examining more than 150 votes aimed at stripping environmental protections last year, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, declared, "This is, without doubt, the most anti-environmental Congress in history."
Yet, to hear Jenkins speak, the party hasn't changed all that much. He blames talk radio and "the left" for mischaracterizing his party.
Hmm. GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates reject climate science, intend to gut EPA funding, characterize the cap-and-trade plan they came up with as a radical socialist plot, want to weaken clean air and clean water laws, and a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection feels compelled to remove the word "Republican" from its name ... but talk radio and "the left" are giving people the wrong idea about the contemporary GOP?
To be sure, the problem is not with ConservAmerica, which is led by credible officials who clearly want to do the right thing. Rather, the problem is with those officials' party, which insists on ignoring sensible voices like ConservAmerica's.
As Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, told Politico, "Under either name ... they face a fundamental challenge that the pro-conservation party of Roosevelt, Nixon, Schwarzenegger and McCain has become the climate science denial party of Romney, Santorum and Limbaugh."
Leave a Comment:
You people need to get a focus . Environmentalism is against big bidness ...all those pesky rules and regulations get in the way of us making more and more money. We have enough money we will never worry about clean water or clean air . We can buy security, clean water and clean air or move offshore to a country that still has a good environment.
Eisenhower, Nixon? Liberal commies if you ask me
I have heard 6 times in the last 2 days that "the cap and trade invented by conservatives was not the cap and trade that the Democratic Congress and Barack Obama proposed." They claim that it's more market -based than the President's government-centered exchanges which mainly raise money for government clean energy initiatives.
This sounds like GOP spin to me, but I don't know enough about it. Can anyone take a swing at filling me in?
There are two groups abroad in the land: The ones who throw their trash out the car window, and the groups (often local businesses, judging by the signs) that clean it up.
An interesting sociological survey would determine the voting habits of each. . .
So the Regulations the Large corporations are complaining about are Toxic waste and recycling issues? I still believe there are chemicals out there that can do a lot of harm to our health if we breathe them or if they contaminate our ground. What exactly do these Corporations plan to do with this waste, sell it as ground beef filler? There are cities now that cannot use their tap water. Bottled water is fine but, what happens when that water starts getting contaminated. As far as recycling I beleive it's a good idea because it saves trees and aluminum and glass. You can recycle these items. I think it also keeps costs down so we don't have to keep buying new items. We can recycle. I can understand how that might hurt some Corporations profits. It is becoming easier to breathe in Los Angeles. I don't think they want anymore smog. So, what is it about the EPA that they don't like? Are we going to allow these Large Corporations to control health issues. Maybe they are planning to live in their factories and never come out.
Just wondering if you saw the NYT mag this weekend about early onset puberty. (we're talking 6 years old)They think there is a possibility it is from estrogen and hormones that have found there way into the food chain and water supply.
My grandaughter who is six suffers from this. I read up on this but, I'm not too confident as far as the findings. Which they say are harmless but, stunt the childs' growth. A good question to ask is why are all the rich CEO's of companys vegetarians.
Sick-n ----tired,'are you for real?
I've heard that the hormones in the water responsible for earlier onset of puberty in girls is from the pill, because we don't filter those hormones out of the water. Also, I have heard that the bovine growth hormone, when fed directly to human girls, leads to early onset of puberty and more weight gain (before the cancer). I wonder how much growth hormone makes it through the human digestive system from the cows we eat and milk we drink?
exchanges which mainly raise money
Wingers claim cap and trade raises taxes but cannot say how because it doesn't. Cap and trade is revenue-neutral. Those who claim otherwise do not know basic economics, or what cap and trade is. They are only repeating slogans they do not understand.
Sick-n ----tired, are you for real?
Poe's Law
Potential reproductive system effects caused by hormones and hormone-disruptors in the drinking water supply is pretty old news. Whether the NYT was covering a new study or simply repeating what's already known, I don't know.
Again and again and again, I remind you that for today's repuknicans facts and science are always outweighed by belief. Whether their beliefs are coming from the theocratic wing of the party or the billionaire funded teabagger wing of the party or the big $$$ part of the party, today's repugnant politicians will toe the line against science if it conflicts with the beliefs of a wing of the party.
If you hate your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren, it is easy to join the climate change deniers who do not want anything to stand in the way of the short term value of their portfolios.
If you hear a republican politician talking about the government in D.C. being broken, just remember that they are not complaining; they are bragging about what they have accomplished!
They are pilferaging( I don't know if this is spelled right) our Country they have enough money they have already opened up shop in other countries so that they can dump their toxic waste on them. Once their done in those countries destroying their land ahhhh, the Moon this is where Newt comes in. Can all of us fit in whatever Country that is left probably not. You must belong to The Opportunity society. Sorry Conservatives you're not invited either.
Right-wing beliefs are carefully generated by professional propagandists whose ultimate goal is to sucker votes that serve the rich.
The GOP will continue to deny raping the earth because she was asking for it!!
Did you ever SEE such cleavage in West Virginia? Why, she's just askin' for mountain top removal. . .
If this continues and it will if Romney is elected he wants to do away with all regulations and he wants to destroy The EPA, Medicaire, Social Security, Medicaide The Dept. of Education, The commerce. Why? Because he has no use for them? He is rich. It will be a very sad day when we can no longer enjoy going to the Beach or hiking, It'll be a very sad day when there are no more National Parks. Redwood....Goodbye. Rain Forest....Goodbye. Snorkling....Goodbye. Did they ever really appreciate how beautiful our Country was. Goodbye Blue skies, Goodbye. The Native Americans are intellegient holding on to their land. We are being bamboozled. And for what .....Greed.
This is why we need to get out and vote. To be elected to Mass Govenor spot, he changed himself into a Te Kennedy wanna be. Now it is another change, GW Bush. He will be the puppet for the oil co and banks just like bush was. We cannot survive another round of them in charge. We will all suffer great loss. Vote against big business, do not vote for Mitt!
Dubya also created a number of marine reserves. Only thing he ever did that I wholeheartedly agreed with.
ConservAnything is going to have problems within the GOP...and probably throughout the electorate. A liberal/progressive would unlikely look to anything Conserv...especially with the elephant, whether it is green or blue or purple.
The GOP has tarnished the word conservative. Which suits me just fine.
If the GOP keeps moving backwards at the rate they are...very soon they will be throwing rocks at the moon and grunting.
especially when Gingrich is President of the Moon
The only people living in a greater state of denial than wingnuts are "moderate Republicans" who continue to think they can get anywhere with the policies they believe in, working in that party. What a bunch of ignorant, laughable morons. ConservAmerica is about as intelligent as gays who register as Republicans because they're "fiscal conservatives."
Like so much else in Republican economics, despising environmentalism comes from Milton Friedman. He advocates selling off the national parks and eliminating controls on resource extraction. That is what "free market" means.
Exactly, reporters need to keep pressuring these nominees about what they mean exactly. Stop sugar-coating their answers and throwing out catchy phrases and generalizing everything. What do they mean by free market? What are these regulations they are talking about? They need to be more specific. Otherwise it's the same old rhetoric.
free market=freedom to rob the people
The change in the Republican party is directly related to the Koch Bros., the Chamber of Commerce and other various interest groups that would like the government to assist them in raping the environment and the economy. These interest groups want to privatize the profits and socialize the costs by shifting cleanup to the taxpayers. The radicals in the party are controlling its agenda with the implicit help of the party regulars that are left. When the party sustains major losses at the polls on a national and state level, will the party regulars be able to retake control of the party.
"Acid raid"? Does your keyboard have a code ... I mean cold? :-)
We all know (or should by now) that fundamentalists will dispute the most clearly observable facts if doing so promotes their agenda. It doesn't matter what stripe of fundamentalism - religious, political, scientific - the dynamic is the same. Considering the big BIG money behind the right wing these days, is it any surprise they're violating some of their previously-held values?
yeah, substituting facts for bumper stickers is a good thing, right? I mean for the Right
Earthquakes in Youngstown, OH coincidentally where the waste water from PA fracking is injected into deep wells, and tap water being flammable coincidentally where fracking is taking place in PA. I also believe they still haven't been able to clean up the oil tar sand spill in Mich, after 2 years effort. Fracking idiots!!!
Changing the name defeats the purpose of moving their party on the issue, and I guess that's the point. I have a friend who's been active in Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) and is a candidate in the Texas Republican primary here. (Of course, he will lose.) One of the reasons he's hung in with the party is his hope of moving the GOP back towards reclaiming its conservationist legacy, which made its last notable appearance as recently as George H.W. Bush's role in the Clean Air Act reauthorization in 1990. Personally, I've felt this was a lost since Reagan. Most environmentalists now either vote for Democrats or indulge their third-party hopes (another lost cause). That being the case, there's no longer a constituency for environmental protection within the Republican Party. REP members have been at the forefront of cautioning environmentalists about the consequences of this, so I can only conclude that they've given up on the GOP or been taken over by Roveian minions who just want them to shut up and go away.
There is interesting commentary by a Republican meteorologist who believes in climate change here:
http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120329.html
This was my response to it (Frank Rich’s article is really worth reading):
It’s a good article as far as climate change goes, but I get rather tired of Republicans who seem to not understand that today’s party of buffoons and haters isn’t an aberration, it’s the logical outcome of years of “benevolent”, propaganda driven consumer-oriented fascism. Now that the empire is crumbling, it’s a little more difficult for them to maintain the façade. The only reason people like Paul Douglas were able to think of themselves as nice people while propping up the right wing is because they just weren’t paying attention to the seamy side, because things were temporarily so prosperous for the America, they didn’t have to.
Frank Rich writes about their war against women, but it’s a terrific piece in more general political terms:
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/gop-women-problem-2012-4/
The notion that we are going to techno-fix our way out of the planetary emergency is just as dangerous as outright denial. There are too many people on the world. There are too many resources that are essential to industrial civilization that are irreplaceable and running out. The burden of pollution in the air and in the ocean is snuffing out life itself.
We are on a fast track for mass extinctions. If we wanted to drastically conserve – meaning, make real sacrifices in our standard of living, our ability to procreate at above replacement, our ability to travel and trade over long distances – we could buy some time and maybe spare some species from extinction.
But there is no magic wand that will fix ocean acidification, sea level rise, melting polar ice and glaciers. Those are already set in motion and unstoppable. So is ecosystem collapse if we continue to use the atmosphere as a sewer for fuel emissions, which are toxic to all forms of life.
The notion that we are going to techno-fix our way out of the planetary emergency is just as dangerous as outright denial. There are too many people on the world. There are too many resources that are essential to industrial civilization that are irreplaceable and running out. The burden of pollution in the air and in the ocean is snuffing out life itself.
We are on a fast track for mass extinctions. If we wanted to drastically conserve – meaning, make real sacrifices in our standard of living, our ability to procreate at above replacement, our ability to travel and trade over long distances – we could buy some time and maybe spare some species from extinction.
But there is no magic wand that will fix ocean acidification, sea level rise, melting polar ice and glaciers. Those are already set in motion and unstoppable. So is ecosystem collapse if we continue to use the atmosphere as a sewer for fuel emissions, which are toxic to all forms of life.