Let’s never forget, when anthropogenic climate change is polled with other issues that Americans are concerned about, it typically comes in last or next to last. This even happens with international issues polls, as well. But, you know, according to some squishes who are aping Leftist talking points, if the GOP doesn’t jump on the bandwagon, they’re doomed
A constructive GOP platform on climate change
Donald Trump says he’s not certain about the validity of climate change. While he mulls that question, scores of Republicans are running for the House and Senate and need sensible guidance from their party.
Addressing the realities of climate change can be a plus for those candidates if they pursue a thoughtful, conservative platform. By grounding the platform in good science and economics, the GOP will appeal to environmentally minded swing voter groups including independents, young people, those who are college educated, Hispanics, and suburban women. Those same voters will be turned off if GOP candidates align with climate skeptics who deny basic findings of the National Academies of Science.
OK, so we’re just supposed to climb(ate) on the Warmist train for convenience, rather than for reality. Second, what are those thoughtful, conservative policies?
Adopt a tax on greenhouse gas emissions throughout the economy that would rise over time so businesses and consumers have time to convert to sustainable activities. The tax could replace numerous, intrusive regulations on personal and corporate behavior. It would be a “revenue neutral†tax on emissions but the revenue wouldn’t stay in the government or pay to enlarge it. Instead, the money would go back to U.S. citizens either as a tax break or, preferably, in a quarterly dividend check.
So, a new tax that would supposedly replace regulations? Good luck with that. Revenue neutral? It’ll never happen. This is strictly a Progressive idea, with nothing Republican about it, much less American Conservative.
Establish a tax at the border on products imported to the U.S. from countries with weak environmental standards. Trump advocates a 35% tariff on items from Mexico. His number may be too high but the thinking behind it is worth considering. There shouldn’t be a price advantage for imports from big-time polluters.
Climate change has nothing to do with the environment, and while well intentioned to go after real environmental polluters, this will simply vastly increase the cost of living to American consumers.
Reconsider intrusive regulations such as the Clean Power Rule, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, the renewable energy mandates, and the California electric-car mandate. These are well-intentioned efforts to reduce climate change but they’re adding layers of costly regulation to business operations. Sometimes the regulations are outmoded and not even linked to environmental results. Those rules should be scrapped. Sometimes businesses have better solutions to environmental problems than a regulation permits. Toyota’s Prius remains a more cost-effective investment than a plug-in electric car. Those kinds of solutions should be approved by regulators, thereby giving increased flexibility for cost-effective innovations that protect for the environment.
They originally weren’t meant to deal with ‘climate change’, they were simply hijacked by Warmists. Interestingly, once we’ve supposedly gotten rid of them, we are right back to government regulators regulating.
Repeal subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuel development and renewable energy. Politicians love to hand out corporate welfare but, as the Solyndra debacle illustrated, the risk of corruption is high. The GOP can say they’re getting the federal government out of the energy business. The amount of money involved isn’t huge but the symbolism is significant.
Most of the tax breaks for fossil fuels and renewables are the same tax breaks that most other companies get. So, all companies should have those tax breaks taken away, otherwise it would be unconstitutional.
In sum, this platform should reassure swing voters that a conservative Republican environmental policy is appealing. All GOP candidates down the ballot can offer a coherent policy to address climate change, sustainability and over-regulation – all at the same time.
Why not just change the name of the party to the Democratic Party Lite party? Besides, when stacked with real issues, no one cares. When their wages are stuck, the economy is lackluster, jobs are poor, and Islamists are killing people, no one cares about a minuscule rise in temperature over 160+ years.
