<p>Reading about Sen. Imhofe’s latest insistance that human activity causing global warming is a hoax started me thinking about something that has baffled me before: Why is belief in the greenhouse gas/global warming connection perceived as a “liberal” point of view, and opposition to recognition of global warming as a problem almost exclusively the province of the right?</p>
<p>Most issues generate a fairly predictable - or at least understandable - left/right split which responds to some core philosophy of the different sides of the political spectrum, but this one has me kind of baffled. I don’t see how acknowledging the impact of human activity on the environment is antithetical to any coherent conservative philosophy that I can identify. Certainly there are many individual conservatives who are concerned about global warming. Still, the vocal opposition to recognition of human-influenced global warming is overwhelmingly a right wing phenomenon. Does anyone here know why?</p>
<p>“Why is belief in the greenhouse gas/global warming connection perceived as a “liberal” point of view, and opposition to recognition of global warming as a problem almost exclusively the province of the right?”</p>
<p>Because neo-liberals are responsible for having embraced the developmental and free-trade assumptions of the corporate socialists, and hence surrendered any moral legitimacy to the issue. And because career politicians like Al Gore go around trumpeting an issue which he says has to be solved in ten years, and then makes proposals regarding it that at best might work in 50.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Just as there are lots of different kinds of liberals, there are lots of different kinds of conservatives. I believe there are plenty of conservatives who accept the global warming hypothesis and who care about it.</p></li>
<li><p>The main conservative objection seems to be to the conclusions people draw about what should be done. Mainstream global warming activists jump very quickly to solutions that are based on restricting development by regulatory means, and to social-engineering taxes to raise the cost of petroleum products. Those are not the kinds of solutions that conservatives tend to like. Sometimes, however, it is politically more effective to attack the premise that a solution is necessary than to get embroiled in technical disputes about which solution is best.</p></li>
<li><p>A constant theme of some liberal-conservative debates throughout my lifetime (and yours, probably) has involved liberals rending their garments over Malthusian predictions that human activity is about to exhaust the Earth’s resources and conservatives having faith that technology and productivity will solve (or defer, for a long, long time) the issue. The global-warming issue is not quite the same thing, but often it sounds like it. And on this one the conservatives have generally been more right than wrong.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a deep attitudinal difference between those liberals who are essentially spiritual animists and those conservatives who are fundamentalist Protestants. Those liberals (who are legion) view environmental preservation as an unqualified good in and of itself. Those conservatives (who are also legion, although not by any means all conservatives) view humanity as the centerpiece of creation, and believe the environment is here for people to do something with it. That does not in and of itself preclude worrying about global warming, but it definitely colors peoples’ attitudes. There is also an eschatological strain among religious conservatives of belief that the end of time is approaching, so that long-term environmental concerns are irrelevant.</p></li>
<li><p>Business-oriented conservatives worry about disruptions to their businesses (with justification). They also suspect that international global-warming solutions will not apply equally to America and to developing Asian countries, including China, so that American competitiveness will be hurt significantly.</p></li>
<li><p>I think that for several years after this issue started hitting the national consciousness there was some legitimate scientific question about the studies showing global warming, or its extent. Raising those questions was the centerpiece of conservative rhetoric about it a decade ago. I believe the issue has pretty much been resolved at the science level, but there is still some knee-jerk reflex to repeat the old talking points (which were not unconvincing).</p></li>
<li><p>As with everything, no one ever rushes to agree that one’s enemy was right. Twenty years ago, I thought that Reagan’s SDI and “evil empire” rhetoric were crimes against humanity. In hindsight, I was wrong and the Republicans were right, but I don’t go around preaching that much (and it took some pretty sensational and inarguable changes in the world to convince me). Lots of liberals actually like the basic ideas behind NCLB and school vouchers, but it’s very hard for them to admit it. Same thing with conservatives and global warming.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>JHS, very nicely stated, but I quibble a bit on your #6; I don’t think the science of global warming and it being a result of human activity is a closed issue. This is still open to debate in the scientific community.</p>
<p>I also think that there is a number 8 (or at least a corollary to one of your other points). That is that the environmental community suffers from the perception of zealotry that rivals the most fundamentalist of any any religion. To many conservatives, when an environmentalist issue is raised, it is seen as just another campaign to save the snail darter or the spotted owl with no concern for the well being of the human community. Would the environmentalist to just “choose their battles” with a little more discretion, they and we would be far better off.</p>
<p>closed issue and yet open to debate…as for scientific “community”…“community” that is debating is fairly small that disputes that something major is happening, and when you look deeper at funding for the “disagreeing” scientist, things become clearer</p>
<p>and considering that the well being of the human community is directly related to the well being of the planet and its resources, too bad those pesking tree huggers care so much</p>
<p>I haven’t seen “corporate socialists” campaigning on their commitment to the “well-being of the human community” any time recently, but since the neoliberals have adopted the same claptrap when it comes to global economics, at least the corporate socialists are honest, in a non-Abramoff sort of way.</p>
<p>I think point #5 is the primary one in this case. Conservatives know that if we acknowledge that global warming is an issue and that American businesses and consumers are contributing disproportionately to the problem, then the logical step for the government to take is regulation, which conservatives and their allies don’t like because it “hurts” big businesses.</p>
<p>Also, there’s a general liberal-conservative split here about the role of government in protecting public goods – liberals tend to push for government to take a big role in protecting the environment, which they see as a public good, while conservatives tend to see the environment as a resource to be used by private individuals and companies, and not regulated by the government.</p>
<p>A lot of good comments. It’s interesting that several of the points seem to boil down to “Global warming concern = environmentalism; environmentalism = liberalism; and if they’re for it I’m against it, or vice versa.” That’s certainly not unique to the right - I strongly suspect that if Bush came out 100% for global warming related reforms there’d be a contingent on the left yelling foul - but it’s still kind of depressing, given the stakes.</p>
<p>Certainly point #5 makes sense. It’s human nature to cling to a theory - even a weak one - which supports a position that means that I’m going to make more money now, over one which means that I may have to tighten my belt in order to benefit someone in the future - even if that “someone” is my own kids.</p>
<p>I don’t agree it’s a “for it/against it” issue. For instance, I support some aspects of environmentalism especially conservation and green belt areas. That doesn’t mean I’m convinced man-made global warming exists, that the solutions presented by environmentalists would fix it (if it does), or that those solutions would be cost-effective and reasonable. </p>
<p>Using your reasoning, I could argue that liberals embrace global warming solely because it’s de riguer for people who embrace environmentalism to do so. I think that would be unfair to make that argument. Liberals and conservatives think about issues. Perhaps we are each more likely to accept issues that resonate with us, but that doesn’t mean we are unwilling to consider other views.</p>
<p>In another thread, you speculated why conservatives seem to hew to the Party line and GOP talking points. I don’t think we do but your perception is interesting. I think this is part of the same issue. No doubt you get information from many media sources - TV, radio, internet, print - on a regular basis, as do I. Surely they are not all conservative or liberal sources but certain views resonate with each of us because of our world views. </p>
<p>It’s fairly obvious that liberal views resonate with you and conservative views resonate with me. That doesn’t mean either of us are close-minded or that we disregard other views, nor does it mean we are incapable of changing our minds on issues.</p>
Actually, I don’t think it would be that unfair. While there’s a lot of variance on non-core issues, as environmentalism is, I think it actually is fair to say that liberals will tend to be receptive to a proposition that is perceived to be “pro-environment.” The science behind global warming is not simple. I think most people have to take the warnings pretty much on faith - or, perhaps more fairly stated, in reliance on what appears to be the consensus of scientists. But I think liberals as a whole would be more receptive to the concept sooner than people who self-identify as “non-liberals” or “anti-liberals.” And in fact I suspect that the more liberal a person perceived themself to be, the more likely they would have been to embrace the concept earlier - even before the scientific consensus had gelled.</p>
<p>But there are lots of pro-environment conservatives - like I say, it’s not what I’d consider a core political issue. The thing is, at this point the scientific community seems to be pretty solid on this one, and when you consider the consequences of betting against the scientists and being wrong - it just strikes me as kind of odd that more non-liberals (other than the Governator) aren’t figuring out a way to get to the front of the parade. (But that’s JHS’s 7th point, isn’t it?)</p>
If there were no cost associated with jumping on the bandwagen that would be a logical assumption. However, recall that the US Senate unanimously (that means liberals and conservatives both) rejected the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. Even the liberals were not willing to accept the costs in jobs of signing on.</p>
<p>I think “ff” is more correct than he likely even knows. (But maybe not.) If you watched Al Gore’s movie, and lined up the economic costs of doing in the next 10 years what his own diagnosis would seem to require, you’d quickly come to the conclusion that he (and those that support his view) are intellectually dishonest in the extreme. His “solutions” don’t line up with his diagnosis, and one of the reasons they don’t is because either a) he really doesn’t believe his diagnosis; or b) he lacks the courage of his convictions.</p>
<p>And if that is true of the neo-liberals, why should conservatives get on the bus?</p>
<p>I’m saying Al Gore amasses fact after fact saying that we have 10 years to fix this, 10 years (now 8) until we reach the point of no return, 10 years before catastrophe is unavoidable, and then makes proposals that take 30-50 years to have enough impact to deal with the 10-year catastrophe that he supposedly sees.</p>
<p>And that is dishonest, reprehensible, and in keeping with his neo-liberal beliefs.</p>
<p>The division seems to me once again due to our wonderful leadership in the White House and our wonderful president’s long-term dissing of the importance/severity/legitimacy of the global warming issue.</p>
As I said earlier, I agree that people are generally receptive to ideas that fit their worldview. I don’t think this translates into unquestioning acceptance of a policy or a cause simply because the proponents are people with which you identify. Accepting global warming solely because environmentalists tell us to is not my idea of good decision-making for liberals or conservatives.</p>
<p>No, but the embrace of neo-liberalism, free trade, NAFTA, WTO, and the export of capital, precisely those things which are the engine of global warming (assuming it exists), is.</p>
<p>It’s not ALL Clinton’s fault. But he had other options, and chose not to pursue them. (We would have been much better off had he spent more time pursuing and bedding down young nubiles.)</p>