Last updated: December, 2022
When a new administration is forming a government, formidable plans are put into place to resolve the short and long-term issues that most gravely and immediately affect the country’s population. In the case of President Biden, this was reflected in his bid to pass the Build Back Better Act of 2021, a 3.5 trillion-dollar new infrastructure plan that would have provided generous federal support for climate priorities like electric vehicles, renewable energy projects and energy efficiency upgrades. However, after facing tough opposition in Congress, it was scaled back into the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which, besides addressing climate change, also emphasized reducing the deficit, expanding healthcare, and reforming the tax system. Thus, it becomes evident that as governing takes place, and reality takes over idealism, politicians and administrators prepare themselves to confront the most noticeable situations affecting their constituents. Some problems arise suddenly, while some of the dilemmas inherited have been occurring over a long period of time and may seem even impossible to resolve. This is the case of climate change. Adding fuel to the fire, those countries that are more interested in solving the problems are sometimes the main contributors to their spread. Over the years, as out-of-control fires, violent storms, and persistent droughts have affected larger sections of the population, the discussion about climate change has grown significantly and has progressively become more relevant in the political agenda of many governments, including the United States. This problem is resistant to simple resolutions and seems uncontrollable politically, economically, socially, and environmentally. Without a clear statement of the problem, ideas for possible solutions become very broad and open-ended with hardly any agreement on how to solve it. In this paper, I will propose that a politically conservative initiative that uses key political language and maneuvering would be more successful towards revolutionary tackling climate change than the liberal one currently proposed.
The burning of fossils pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the process is very difficult to reverse. At the time of the Industrial Revolution, a catalyst for modernization, Earth’s population grew from less than one billion to more than eight billion. Some authors already conclude that “if greenhouse gas emissions do not decline drastically, ecosystems and human communities face a high risk of significant and widespread stress” (Levin, 2012, 126). As addressed in a report created by the Australian government, following this logic, if we make no reforms on the political scale, “unsustainable patterns of consumption and production” will leave the environment unsustainable (Australian, 2022, 3-4). Even though this problem is unlikely to be solved in the near future, the strongest possible measures should be taken to mitigate and reverse its effects until more efficient technology is eventually developed. What we know is that if no reforms are made, these increasingly unsustainable patterns of consumption and production could affect the environment irrevocably.
Humans are the main obstacle in the fight against climate change. This is due to the modern ways of consumption and production, which have created a level of wealth that most people are unwilling to back away from. Once you achieve a certain level of comfort, giving it up is very hard to do. Therefore, the ultimate dilemma deals with being able to preserve our current standard of living while stopping climate change. This is the main division between those who believe the world can invent its way out of it versus those who think a radical simplification of the way we live is needed. Here lies another conundrum: whether to trust the democratic process or to rely on a few enlightened stakeholders to lead us by trusting that their motivations are altruistic.
The tension within the ideological spectrum on the issue of environmentalism has been significant since the 19th century. It first started between the “Arcadians” and the “Utilitarians.” The Arcadians, headed by John Muir, tended to focus on preservation of nature and opposed modernization; the Utilitarians, led by Gifford Pinchot, were open to an adequate utilization of natural resources using some technological advances. With the advent of World War I, the debate halted. However, since the 1960s it has become apparent that combating climate change is a very pressing issue, especially in the West Coast and New England, where the Sierra Club grew exponentially. This trend was sparked by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and legislative efforts to curb air and water pollution were introduced. President Lyndon B. Johnson expressed his pro-environment opinion and sparked a wave of support which led to the creation of the first Earth Day in 1970, with Richard Nixon in office. This was possible because in the seventies there was little relationship between party affiliation and environmental attitudes, making environmental issues “a consensual, non-divisive issue” (Dunlap et al., 2001, 25). In fact, when President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970, he urged the American people to make a New Year’s resolution which would require a sustained commitment for ten years because, in his words, if “you project population growth, car growth, and that means, of course, smog growth, water pollution, and the rest. Unless we move on it now, believe me, we will not have an opportunity to do it later, because then when people have millions more automobiles…it is much harder to turn it around” (Nixon, 1969, 1).
Although he opposed government intervention, Nixon shrewdly anticipated that the Democrats could use the issue in their favor, so he pushed for environmental laws as a tactic “to confound the enemy. Stealing the Democrats’ clothes was Nixon’s old Tom Sawyer trick” (Thomas, 2015, 348). Right away in his presidency, Nixon boldly called for an emissions tax on sulfur dioxide and created the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Clean Air Act all within a few years. The correlation between party identification and environmental concern only surfaced later, as factions started to identify with an ideology catered to please their base. Various studies “have consistently found significant relationships between ideology and environmental concern” (Dunlap et al., 2001, 27). This change in the political climate was visible by 1972. By that time, the political debate had heated up, sparked by the regulation of public lands in the West and Alaska, and environmental catastrophes such as a burning river in Ohio and the oil spill in Santa Barbara. At the end of his presidency, Nixon changed direction and allied himself with industry to the point that on his last day as president, he vetoed the EPA’s budget.
For a while, the issue of environmentalism was consensual, and much of its legislation was enacted with Democratic support by the Republican administrations of Nixon (1969-1974) and Ford (1974-1977). This shared support continued through the Democratic presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-1981). Even Ronald Reagan, as governor of California (1967-1975), in his inaugural address embraced the environmental cause: “Our state has shown the way in environmental protection. Much remains to be done of course, but we are meeting the challenge. Legislation needed in the fight against air and water pollution has been provided and we are united determination to preserve the magic beauty of California” (Reagan, 1971). However, in his early years as president (1981-1989), he would make environmentalism a partisan issue with his alliance with the fossil fuel industry, and although he changed later to a more moderate position, today, the general perception is that conservatives are opposed to environmental regulation. However, as history shows, that was not always the case and, therefore, that position can be reverted, as the influence of the oil industry is diminishing or even morphing into environmental champions.
Constituents are becoming aware of the consequences of idleness and simply adopting halfhearted policies. The national government can develop awareness and incentivize the population to get them involved because it is necessary to challenge assumptions and the resistance to change. An important step towards tackling climate change has been the raise in public awareness throughout recent years. By engaging more people into realizing the grave danger of climate change, there is a greater chance to pass legislation that will bring everyone closer to fighting for a loftier cause. Incumbents must deal with many obstacles in office. They must efficiently tackle climate change by acquiring the recognition and understanding of legislators and government overall. It is unfortunate that the delay of political agendas plays such a central role in the approach to problem solving, but if Congress were to pass programs without that interference, climate change legislation would have to protect itself against powerful political and economic interests motivated by short-term concerns.
President Biden was hoping to pass the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan, which according to the White House, “would create good-paying, union jobs, establish an energy efficiency and clean energy standard, expand and extend clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, and enlist a new Civilian Climate Corps.” However, the energy sector fought against the plan because it would establish a methane fee above a certain threshold. This is why more Republican support is needed. Biden’s plan was a solid one, but a more effective approach would be to frame it as a single-issue, national endeavor comparable to the one assumed by President Kennedy when he stated, “we choose to go to the moon.” It might not be perceived as a national problem, but climate change needs the United States to exercise a leadership role internationally. A similar effort to the one undertook under the Kennedy administration must be carried out to galvanize the American public and direct resources and key scientists to become involved in a national project in which ‘we choose to end climate change.’ This is as much of a pressing problem and threat to global health and peace as the Cold War was then.
However, this might be a naïve endeavor because of the recent climate of political polarization. Even the successful passage of the Inflation Reduction Act – the largest climate investment in American history – cannot be considered a success because the now $750 billion bill will have to also deal with health care expansion, tax reform and deficit reduction. Climate change alone needs much more attention, but at this point, as is stated on President Biden webpage, this not possible because “every single Republican – every single one – voted against tackling the climate crisis, against lowering our energy costs, against creating good paying jobs. My fellow Americans, that’s the choice we face – we can protect the already powerful or show the courage to build a future where everybody has an even shot” (Biden/Harris, 2022).
Therefore, to enact effective legislation to combat this huge problem, even some Democrats will admit that it’s imperative that Republicans lead the project. Right now, it is a purely Democrat crusade, neglected by most Republicans as a low priority, and since Democrats are always going to be on board, to pass both houses, a huge climate change bill will inevitably need to be introduced by Republicans. However, due to the political consequences of not being supported by Donald Trump, who openly mocked the topic, most Republicans are reluctant to embrace the subject. Nevertheless, in June of this year, House Republicans formed a group to do so. Fifty-six Republicans – still only a quarter of the GOP – have joined the climate group, including Garret Graves, the top Republican on the House Select Committee on Climate; Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the top Republican on Energy and Commerce; and Bruce Westerman, top Republican on Natural Resources. Although none of the top three GOP leaders in the House belong to the climate group, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California said he intends to form a Republican task force on the issue.
To pass the revolutionary climate change bill that it is needed to combat climate change, it is imperative that politics are removed from the equation leading to the solution. In that sense, Christopher H. Schroeder proposes a “third way solution” for environmentalism that avoids an ideological approach and embraces instead a pragmatic approach that is neither Republican nor Democratic because, just like all other policies, the “environmental protection initiatives are deeply invested in the idea of false choices, especially the false choice between environmental policy and economic growth” (Schroeder, 1999, 809). Therefore, the only possible way to move toward passing a bill that will effectively and significantly target climate change is if conservatives take the lead by embracing an issue they have abandoned and modernize their position because “current public attitudes in the West emphasize environmental values, outdoor recreation, and strong support for renewable energy. To date, the Republican Party has steadfastly ignored these changes” (Farber, 2017, 1048). The Republican Party needs to catch up with the times or risk losing elections as demographics and the evidence of climate change become increasingly impossible to ignore. It is possible to reformulate conservative principles to protect the environment, but of course, they could also realize that from a pragmatic standpoint. Republicans need to realize soon that supporting this issue could gain them a significant number of votes. Their ideology would need to be reinterpreted in such a way that cannot be portrayed as a betrayal to their principles and doesn’t look like they show a willingness to compromise their postulates. Then, there is also the problem of their allegiance to the energy industries that have financially stood by their side all these years. The Republican party is still anchored to the ideas developed during the Reagan presidency in the 1980s, when the party strongly positioned itself with the coal and oil industries. The coal industry’s influence is clearly waning and while the oil industry still holds tremendous influence in the Republican Party, Democrats are demarcating fast from those interest groups and siding with new types of energy industries. Just from the most practical standpoint of finances, “this raises some serious questions about whether western support will remain as politically important to the Republican Party in the future or as rich a source of funding for conservative think tanks” (Farber, 2017, 1050). Aware of the prospects of an increasingly larger and younger number of Americans siding with liberal causes such as climate change, some reformist Republicans are starting to realize that their voters are increasingly older, which becomes an electoral time bomb, and “have called for a retooling of conservative thought” (Dionne, 2016, 417). Denying climate change is no longer a viable position for conservatives, but they are hesitant about possible alternatives, still prioritizing current economic conditions. However, the ever more pressing situation of climate change is forcing the hand of the Republican party to present a clear response to the inescapable reality of climate change.
Jonathan Adler is a proponent of a new road for conservative principles. Discontent with the Republican aversion to anything green and their systematic opposition by turning a deaf ear to anything coming from the other side and completely ignoring the problem, Adler proposes to get rid of government interventions that harm the environment – for example, agricultural subsidies, which can potentially become harmful. Instead, aware of the priority placed by Republicans on current economic issues, he recommends investing into cleaner industries that also will raise everyone’s standard of living (Adler, 2013, 279-80). Republicans could justify this shift by referring to the damages created by extreme weather in Republican districts, but also as a new triumphant strategy to win elections by attracting moderate voters, because sooner rather than later, conservatives will have to realize that younger generations do not share their current views on climate change. This trend is increasingly clearer. As Daniel A. Farber points out, “Clinton beat Trump 55% to 37% among millennials, while losing 45% to 53% among baby boomers” (Farber, 2017, 1058). However, to obtain enough support from their base, Republican leadership will need to appropriate the climate change initiative and make it their own. To do that, the first step will require to change the language. As some authors such as Jayme Neiman et al. have demonstrated, Democrats and Republicans prefer certain words because “regardless of party, politicians at almost equal levels across parties feel compelled to use words such as America, but among less commonly used words we might see clear value-based differences.” They develop this idea by pointing out that, “for example, Democrats use the word “gay” more often, while Republicans more often use the word “embryo.” However, there are a lot of words that all Americans like, such as “work,” “country,” “American,” etc. Based on this theory, by using a language appealing to all Americans, Republicans should try to introduce legislation that could be called “The America First Conservation Act.” President Biden seems to be familiar with the importance of language because his Build Back Better Act used words like “Build”, which sounded like “Make”; “Better”, which sounded like “Great”; and “Back”, which sounded like “Again.” In other words, by using language like Build Back Better he was trying to tap into the Make America Great Again Republican slogan. No wonder that according to the Navigator Research Poll, 66% of Americans supported the Build Back Better Plan. It is too bad he didn’t call it the American Build Back Better Plan. He could have garnered even greater support and maybe it would have passed as intended. But President Biden is clearly aware of the importance of language, as he demonstrated while renaming his newest bill with very conservative-appealing terms such as “Inflation Reduction.” Climate change is becoming such a pressing issue that, at this point, Democrats should work together to encourage Republicans –if the Republican party can “dump Trump” – to introduce new legislation to combat climate change, even if that means gambling with the possibility of losing an election, because the stakes are so high. A Republican-led climate change initiative might just be only way the country finally leads the world in an effort to fight climate change.
References
Adler, Jonathan H. (2013). Conservative Principles for Environmental Reform. Duke Environmental Law and Policy 23 (2), 253-280.
Australian Government: Australian Public Service Commission. (2022). Tackling Wicked Problems: A Public Policy Perspective. Australian Public Service Commission. https://www.apsc. gov.au/tackling-wicked-problems-public-policy-perspective
Biden/Harris Democrats (2022). Accomplishments. https://joebiden.com
Dionne, Eugene Joseph. Jr. (2016). Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism from Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond. Simon and Schuster.
Dunlap, Riley E, et al. (2001). Politics and Environment in America: Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Public Support for Environmentalism. Environmental Politics 10 (4), 23-48.
Farber, Daniel A. (2017). The Conservative as Environmentalist: from Goldwater and the Early Reagan to the 21st Century. Arizona Law Review 59, 1005-1060.
Levin, Kelly, et al. (2012). Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Problems: Constraining our Future Selves to Ameliorate Global Climate Change. Policy Science 45, 123–152.
Neiman, Jayme L, et al. (2015). Speaking Different Languages or Reading from the Same Script? Word Usage of Democratic and Republican Politicians. Political Communication 33 (22), 212-240.
Nixon, Richard M. (1969). Remarks on Signing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. American Presidency Project. http//www.presidency.ucsb.edu
Reagan, Ronald. (1971). Ronald W. Reagan, Governor of Cal., Second Inaugural Address (Jan. 4, 1971). https://governors.library.ca.gov/addresses/33-Reagan02.html
Schroeder, Christopher H. (1999). Third Way Environmentalism. University of Kansas Law Review 48, 801-828.
The White House. (2022). The Build Back Better Agenda. https://www.whitehouse.gov/buildBack-better/
Thomas, Evan. (2015). Being Nixon: A Man Divided. Random House.
David Gómez is a student majoring in Political Science (International Relations) and Spanish at Whittier College.
