Port in a Storm

[Laxman]

I'm not real optimistic about any kind of bipartisanship these days. I thought this article was a really good synopsis of where we are today on environmental issues that used to just be taken for granted as things everybody pretty much agreed on.

Strip away the sportsmen, the believers in sound science, and those who think it immoral to destroy our nation’s resources from the GOP and it starts to become a very lonely place. Without these groups it becomes a party of millionaires, presumably sitting around discussing Ayn Rand, complaining about how difficult it is to be rich in America and shooing away fringe lunatics who want to see President Obama’s birth certificate.

Port in a Storm-Politics of the Environment

This is an interesting discussion of whether or not environmental issues can be used to wake up some Republicans and restore at least a bit of bi-partisanship to our political debate. I think its worth the 5 minutes it takes to read. (I think he forgot about the racists, Luddites, & Fox News/Limbaugh zombies who will never abandon the GOP, but the idea is the same )

[jade3000]

1. Green jobs industry is mostly nonpartisan

I work in the green jobs industry, and I can tell that on the ground it is a nonpartisan industry. Green building design, energy audits, energy efficiency retro-fit construction, sustainable building materials, etc. are supported by people in this industry regardless of political views, although some are more cynical and some more optimistic.

The key with environmental issues is that they are ALMOST ALWAYS ABOUT PEOPLE. Climate Change is a classic example; fundamentally -- no matter what the techno-policy folks tell you -- it's about protecting people and our resources. I have worked for and volunteered for numerous environmental organizations, and they may claim otherwise but it gets down to people (of course, many organizations readily admit this, which is good thing). Short of a nuclear war or asteroid impact, the earth will take care of itself just fine for the next several hundred of millions of years. So the most important thing is to understand how your environmental actions and solutions can positively impact the people and group who you care about.

[Laxman]

2. I Understand What You're Saying

but the environment is much more than just green jobs. The laws that protect our resources are being rolled back because politicians don't respect environmentalists or because there aren't any consequences for being anti-environmental. Your talking about business and when there's money to be made you can always attract Republicans.

I think this part of the article is important:

Environmental protection has become a partisan Democratic issue. This does not bode well for the long-term future of our nation’s resources. There will inevitably be swings of power between Democrats and Republicans, and periods of Republican control cannot be interludes in purgatory for the environment. This situation is bad for environmental policy and ultimately bad for politics in general. Having policy areas where the parties can find common ground and agreement is essential for a vibrant and healthy democracy. Environmental issues have traditionally provided opportunities for non-partisan cooperation. With the end of bi-partisanship and the rejection by the Republicans of environmental protections, the Democratic Party has effectively become the home of environmentalists by default. This then raises the question, “Where do conservatives who care about the environment turn?”

especially when the economy is poor, there will always be attacks on environmental protections when you can make money from rolling them back.

[jade3000]

3. Agreed and good quote, but keep in mind

I agree with you and the article that having the environment become a partisan issue is not a good thing -- like the quote says "Having policy areas where the parties can find common ground and agreement is essential for a vibrant and healthy democracy." And I recognize that green jobs are only one of many environmental issues.

That said, the quote also refers to "the long-term future of our nation's resources." This is a political economy issue as well as environmental. Resources controlled by whom? Used for what purposes? Conserved for what potential future purposes? It's good to be clear about these things.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

4. Pinchot & Muir

I got the gist of this article to be advocating for an alliance between those with the John Muir point of view and those with the Gifford Pinchot view. One saw the mission to preserve, the other to conserve in the vernacular of their day. Neither wanted to see our natural heritage disappear. Today, I guess they would both be radical environmentalists. Its kind of ironic that the dedicated outdoorsmen that align themselves with the Republicans are supporting people who would trash everything they love about the environment like open space, clean air and clean water.

[Laxman]

5. I think it goes a little deeper than that...

when are people going to wake up? Its kind of like why do so many people who support the republicans keep voting against their own interest. Are economic or social issues so strong that they can make people ignore everything else? Politically, how do (or can) democrats use environmental issues to overcome them and make some inroads?

The article quotes Field & Stream. When that magazine strongly criticizes the republicans, something must be up.