The first thing we need to do to protect the environment is to realize the futility of the left-right, liberal conservative duality, acknowledge that we are all in this together, and that 'we' includes not just humans, but all our wild relatives. Back in the '60-'70s, we thought we could succeed just by changing the laws. That resulted in some great things, but as time has passed, we have learned that changing the laws did not change the fundamental story behind far too many peoples' behavior. The author is right in saying that a lot of people care, but we need a new story that allows that care to be expressed.
A fine piece, if it had even a remote attachment to what's actually happening in the real world. Chris seems oblivious to the beliefs and actions of the leader of his "new" right movement-the man charting the conservative course on environmental policy. Don has called climate change a hoax, suggested nuking hurricanes, claimed wind turbines cause cancer and drive whales crazy, applauded rising sea levels because they create more oceanfront property, along with dozens of other loony utterances. Then again, he also suggested ingesting bleach might be a groovy treatment for covid... If your aging father had such a track record, wouldn't you seek medical attention?
Keep the faith Chris, the new environmental policy will surely come right after other long promised initiatives-infrastructure week, a health care plan, the release of the Trump/Epstein files, and the elimination of our debt.
I mean wind turbines dont offset emissions at all compared to the CO2 to build them, so its good to be against wind turbines. Climate change also is mostly a hoax pushed by degrowth ideologues. Trump intuitions are correct.
Environmental preservation needs to be framed as just that, preserving the beauty and ecology of our landmass. Not a focus of CO2 as a doomsday clock, or fickle destroyer god that all must be sacrificed to
No worries Tucker, nothing wrong with Don saving the whales...I love irony. Meanwhile, we'll continue allowing China to dominate the industries of the future rather than doing what we've always done in the past-leading the world and kicking our competitor's asses. Drones, industrial robots, batteries, solar, wind, EV's, on and on-we'll just leave those to China, since we've cleverly discovered they aren't real industries, they're just woke fever dreams. Real men burn coal and drive muscle cars from the 70's.
Unfortunately, the world isn't so simple, and doesn't stop when our aged, incoherent prez bleats out nonsense. They move forward, investing in future industries, while we fret about a fictional trans kid in Tupelo who legend says got a 4th place ribbon in the local track meet.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is a crew that can't even learn the lesson George Washington learned in the 1700's-vaccines actually work. Without ole woke George "mandating" a smallpox vaccine for his army, who knows how that war woulda worked out:) Maybe we should tear down the Washington monument since we've discovered his "wokeness". Or better yet, let's rename it for Don, he seems to spend an inordinate of time and our money on feting himself.
Be well Tucker, but watch out for those measles outbreaks...
1) Drones, Robots, Batteries, and Solar, and EVs are technologies that have valuable applications. And guess what, the IS has very strong companies competing in all these areas. Do you really think a more hyper-regulated business environment would make us stronger? No, Anduril and First Solar etc are creative disruptors in these markets
3) Wind is not a real industry and China gets none of its power from wind
2) Who put tariffs on Chinese EVs first? Trump in his first term. Otherwise we would already be flooded with cheap Chinese cars right now. Which you say you dont want, so thank Trump for that.
3) Trump has led to more domestic industrial investment than any president in your life, but youre saying hes distracted and incoherent while letting China win. Cmon dude read about new projects getting built please, dont be willfully ignorant.
4) The current reappearance of measles is very very tiny and nobody has died, smaller case number than most european countries. Measles came from 10M illegals crossing the border under Biden, unchecked for diseases, not vaccine skepticism here at home.
Your hatred makes you stupid, and its poisoning your heart. You should thank God for this day, for His mercies, and for a president that is helping the country.
I too have read what Don instructs his followers to believe, I see you have too. But I also look at actual data from nonpartisan sources. Data doesn't lie. Don does, repeatedly.
In any event, Don’s approval on the economy is now even lower than poor ole Joepa's was, I guess the economic nirvana he's proclaimed to you hasn't trickled down to workin stiffs quite yet. But Don's fellow plutocrats are doing quite nicely due to the BBB and the favorable treatment they paid for via taco tariffs, etc.
Why do you think the billionaire/trillionaire tech bros got front row seats at the inaugural?
See my reply to Tucker, as I anxiously await nuclear testing since hurricane season is upon us. For more information, I'd recommend reading the studies the US military has been conducting for the last 75 years or so. Or, dig into what major banks and insurers think the future holds, and how much they're charging you to offset their risks.
Uh no Shawn, I'm not the crazy person. The one who keeps publicly bragging about "acing" tests meant to detect dementia is. He's the one rambling incoherently about windmills and nuking hurricanes. Shouldn't a president have things slightly more important to fret about? And like we rightfully did with Joepa's obvious incoherence, shouldn't we worry about having such a diminished person with his finger on the button?
HBO? Dramas? No, I'm talking about the public statements and actions of the sitting president of the United States. As you say, they are insane. However, he IS the founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right, and the "new" right is in complete control of the entire federal government. They have dominated politics for over a decade. Since the policies Chris pines for would necessarily emanate from the leader of his movement, the views of the president matter. TV shows not so much. It's nice that Chris stays ensconced in establishment elite circles, arguing with fellow elites about policies that the leader of his movement doesn't remotely care about or even understand. There's nothing wrong with getting paid for tilting at windmills.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and Chris's dream will come true. Perhaps Don will lead a bold, well-conceived, coherent environmental movement with his top "science" expert-RFK Jr., at his side. Perhaps. Meanwhile, my money is on far more talk from Don about scary brown people, monuments to himself, crypto corruption, foreigners, trans kids, and all the other drivel he distracts the masses with daily.
Smart piece from Chris Barnard, a rising environmental-energy policy thought leader. There's a lot of ways that our national energy and environmental politics can be revived. It wasn't that long ago that major environmental statutes garnered massive bipartisan majorities. There were controversies--a lot of them--and they were worked out in floor debates and committee deliberation. By contrast, over-reliance on regulation and the courts in recent years has yielded far less progress amid rising polarization.
Good idea,but conservatives aren’t capable of not screwing it up. That climate change is no longer at the top of the priority list is not for the reasons you state, but because neo-conservative have created many far worse problems that need to be solved first. This is the legacy of conservatism today. Still, your ideas about focusing on clean water and air are worth pursuing. For starters, why isn’t drinkable water a right when you pay a system to deliver exactly that?
Same, have fun with all of this I agree. We have our views brother, but we don't take ourselves too seriously. Our opinions are like ass holes Karl, everyone has one! right! lol
I'm surprised Regenerative Agriculture did not get mentioned as an option for conservative conservationists to rally around, given that it seeks the kind of win-win relationship with the land that the author speaks of in his forest example. It also has the potential to boost small farms and reduce reliance on large corporate agri-businesses. That's not so great for big-business libertarian-minded Republicans, but it's great for what the New Right claims to be about.
A good piece, I'm glad to finally see a conservative environmental movement and one being led by someone my age! Where you lose me though is the obsession with everything needing to be justified by benefiting humans. You can still have a conservative and abundance outlook, while also acknowledging that this is the only planet we know of in the universe that supports life, and that the species and ecosystems that live here should to the greatest extent possible, be allowed to live and evolve without our interference.
Obviously abundance makes this easier, but it's still a worthy goal on its many merits (both instrumental and moral). It's not even that big of an ask. Take my home of New England since you mentioned it.
Only 3.3% of our land is considered unmanaged wilderness, were evolution and ecology are allowed to play out without human interference.
In New England 0.21% of our GDP comes from ag, forestry, and fishing, and our most rural areas contain a minuscule proportion of our region's population. Preserving huge tracts of our region's land would protect some of our nation's most intact eastern forests, and have essentially no negative economic impact.
It would probably be a net positive economically, since outdoor recreation is 10x bigger share of our GDP (2.2%), and people would come from all over to hike and explore massive eastern old growth wilderness.
Also the people who said climate was The Issue and would kill us all in 10 years have now forgotten absolutely it it entirely, since deportations are happening thats the biggest thing to freak out about. Mass immigration is apparently much more important than the ‘Thing that will kill all humans very very soon!’
Want to show your math on coal being an expensive energy source? By calculations I've seen it's typically the lowest marginal cost dispatchable source in existing US regions (eg MISO), competitive with natgas
The first thing we need to do to protect the environment is to realize the futility of the left-right, liberal conservative duality, acknowledge that we are all in this together, and that 'we' includes not just humans, but all our wild relatives. Back in the '60-'70s, we thought we could succeed just by changing the laws. That resulted in some great things, but as time has passed, we have learned that changing the laws did not change the fundamental story behind far too many peoples' behavior. The author is right in saying that a lot of people care, but we need a new story that allows that care to be expressed.
A fine piece, if it had even a remote attachment to what's actually happening in the real world. Chris seems oblivious to the beliefs and actions of the leader of his "new" right movement-the man charting the conservative course on environmental policy. Don has called climate change a hoax, suggested nuking hurricanes, claimed wind turbines cause cancer and drive whales crazy, applauded rising sea levels because they create more oceanfront property, along with dozens of other loony utterances. Then again, he also suggested ingesting bleach might be a groovy treatment for covid... If your aging father had such a track record, wouldn't you seek medical attention?
Keep the faith Chris, the new environmental policy will surely come right after other long promised initiatives-infrastructure week, a health care plan, the release of the Trump/Epstein files, and the elimination of our debt.
I mean wind turbines dont offset emissions at all compared to the CO2 to build them, so its good to be against wind turbines. Climate change also is mostly a hoax pushed by degrowth ideologues. Trump intuitions are correct.
Environmental preservation needs to be framed as just that, preserving the beauty and ecology of our landmass. Not a focus of CO2 as a doomsday clock, or fickle destroyer god that all must be sacrificed to
No worries Tucker, nothing wrong with Don saving the whales...I love irony. Meanwhile, we'll continue allowing China to dominate the industries of the future rather than doing what we've always done in the past-leading the world and kicking our competitor's asses. Drones, industrial robots, batteries, solar, wind, EV's, on and on-we'll just leave those to China, since we've cleverly discovered they aren't real industries, they're just woke fever dreams. Real men burn coal and drive muscle cars from the 70's.
Unfortunately, the world isn't so simple, and doesn't stop when our aged, incoherent prez bleats out nonsense. They move forward, investing in future industries, while we fret about a fictional trans kid in Tupelo who legend says got a 4th place ribbon in the local track meet.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. This is a crew that can't even learn the lesson George Washington learned in the 1700's-vaccines actually work. Without ole woke George "mandating" a smallpox vaccine for his army, who knows how that war woulda worked out:) Maybe we should tear down the Washington monument since we've discovered his "wokeness". Or better yet, let's rename it for Don, he seems to spend an inordinate of time and our money on feting himself.
Be well Tucker, but watch out for those measles outbreaks...
1) Drones, Robots, Batteries, and Solar, and EVs are technologies that have valuable applications. And guess what, the IS has very strong companies competing in all these areas. Do you really think a more hyper-regulated business environment would make us stronger? No, Anduril and First Solar etc are creative disruptors in these markets
3) Wind is not a real industry and China gets none of its power from wind
2) Who put tariffs on Chinese EVs first? Trump in his first term. Otherwise we would already be flooded with cheap Chinese cars right now. Which you say you dont want, so thank Trump for that.
3) Trump has led to more domestic industrial investment than any president in your life, but youre saying hes distracted and incoherent while letting China win. Cmon dude read about new projects getting built please, dont be willfully ignorant.
4) The current reappearance of measles is very very tiny and nobody has died, smaller case number than most european countries. Measles came from 10M illegals crossing the border under Biden, unchecked for diseases, not vaccine skepticism here at home.
Your hatred makes you stupid, and its poisoning your heart. You should thank God for this day, for His mercies, and for a president that is helping the country.
I too have read what Don instructs his followers to believe, I see you have too. But I also look at actual data from nonpartisan sources. Data doesn't lie. Don does, repeatedly.
In any event, Don’s approval on the economy is now even lower than poor ole Joepa's was, I guess the economic nirvana he's proclaimed to you hasn't trickled down to workin stiffs quite yet. But Don's fellow plutocrats are doing quite nicely due to the BBB and the favorable treatment they paid for via taco tariffs, etc.
Why do you think the billionaire/trillionaire tech bros got front row seats at the inaugural?
See my reply to Tucker, as I anxiously await nuclear testing since hurricane season is upon us. For more information, I'd recommend reading the studies the US military has been conducting for the last 75 years or so. Or, dig into what major banks and insurers think the future holds, and how much they're charging you to offset their risks.
Uh no Shawn, I'm not the crazy person. The one who keeps publicly bragging about "acing" tests meant to detect dementia is. He's the one rambling incoherently about windmills and nuking hurricanes. Shouldn't a president have things slightly more important to fret about? And like we rightfully did with Joepa's obvious incoherence, shouldn't we worry about having such a diminished person with his finger on the button?
HBO? Dramas? No, I'm talking about the public statements and actions of the sitting president of the United States. As you say, they are insane. However, he IS the founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right, and the "new" right is in complete control of the entire federal government. They have dominated politics for over a decade. Since the policies Chris pines for would necessarily emanate from the leader of his movement, the views of the president matter. TV shows not so much. It's nice that Chris stays ensconced in establishment elite circles, arguing with fellow elites about policies that the leader of his movement doesn't remotely care about or even understand. There's nothing wrong with getting paid for tilting at windmills.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and Chris's dream will come true. Perhaps Don will lead a bold, well-conceived, coherent environmental movement with his top "science" expert-RFK Jr., at his side. Perhaps. Meanwhile, my money is on far more talk from Don about scary brown people, monuments to himself, crypto corruption, foreigners, trans kids, and all the other drivel he distracts the masses with daily.
Smart piece from Chris Barnard, a rising environmental-energy policy thought leader. There's a lot of ways that our national energy and environmental politics can be revived. It wasn't that long ago that major environmental statutes garnered massive bipartisan majorities. There were controversies--a lot of them--and they were worked out in floor debates and committee deliberation. By contrast, over-reliance on regulation and the courts in recent years has yielded far less progress amid rising polarization.
Good idea,but conservatives aren’t capable of not screwing it up. That climate change is no longer at the top of the priority list is not for the reasons you state, but because neo-conservative have created many far worse problems that need to be solved first. This is the legacy of conservatism today. Still, your ideas about focusing on clean water and air are worth pursuing. For starters, why isn’t drinkable water a right when you pay a system to deliver exactly that?
omg the algo machines are working hard today! Karl and company! lol funny!
Hi Jeff! So good to hear from you. Do you think universities are religion?
lol ha Karl, you are hallucinating again. lol relax and just breathe easily. You get way too excited, go easy on yourself.
I love your trenchant commentary Jeff.
Same, have fun with all of this I agree. We have our views brother, but we don't take ourselves too seriously. Our opinions are like ass holes Karl, everyone has one! right! lol
Stay out of trouble brudah :)
I'm surprised Regenerative Agriculture did not get mentioned as an option for conservative conservationists to rally around, given that it seeks the kind of win-win relationship with the land that the author speaks of in his forest example. It also has the potential to boost small farms and reduce reliance on large corporate agri-businesses. That's not so great for big-business libertarian-minded Republicans, but it's great for what the New Right claims to be about.
A good piece, I'm glad to finally see a conservative environmental movement and one being led by someone my age! Where you lose me though is the obsession with everything needing to be justified by benefiting humans. You can still have a conservative and abundance outlook, while also acknowledging that this is the only planet we know of in the universe that supports life, and that the species and ecosystems that live here should to the greatest extent possible, be allowed to live and evolve without our interference.
Obviously abundance makes this easier, but it's still a worthy goal on its many merits (both instrumental and moral). It's not even that big of an ask. Take my home of New England since you mentioned it.
Only 3.3% of our land is considered unmanaged wilderness, were evolution and ecology are allowed to play out without human interference.
In New England 0.21% of our GDP comes from ag, forestry, and fishing, and our most rural areas contain a minuscule proportion of our region's population. Preserving huge tracts of our region's land would protect some of our nation's most intact eastern forests, and have essentially no negative economic impact.
It would probably be a net positive economically, since outdoor recreation is 10x bigger share of our GDP (2.2%), and people would come from all over to hike and explore massive eastern old growth wilderness.
Also the people who said climate was The Issue and would kill us all in 10 years have now forgotten absolutely it it entirely, since deportations are happening thats the biggest thing to freak out about. Mass immigration is apparently much more important than the ‘Thing that will kill all humans very very soon!’
So what is the program?
1) To we keep open existing coal plants or do we close them?
2) Do we provide incentives for electric vehicles or do we eliminate them?
3) How much drilling for oil and gas do we want to have in our coastal waterways and in Alaska?
4) Do we raise taxes on gasoline (rates which have not changed in over30 years)?
5) What do we do about federal insurance for coastal homes?
Want to show your math on coal being an expensive energy source? By calculations I've seen it's typically the lowest marginal cost dispatchable source in existing US regions (eg MISO), competitive with natgas