Will Republicans Remain the Stupid Party, or Come to Climate Table?

November 6, 2021

I’m working on a piece examining the Republican (lack of) response to climate change, and the party’s current efforts to reposition itself on the issue.

In the course of research, I spoke to a range of sources, including Stuart Stevens of the Lincoln Project, above, and Karly Mathews, a young conservative climate activist with the American Conservation Coalition.


5 Responses to “Will Republicans Remain the Stupid Party, or Come to Climate Table?”

  1. neilrieck Says:

    Recessive gene: so Trump is a black sheep?

  2. jimbills Says:

    Well, it’s a bit hard to believe, due to their history and their immediate present. They’re currently talking about taking out the 13 House Republicans in the next election who voted for the bi-partisan infrastructure bill. They’re, so far, successfully eliminating the very few Republicans that voted to impeach and investigate Trump. Any kind of dissension in their ranks is met with a sort of proto-fascist crackdown. Who says they wouldn’t respond in the same way with Republicans supporting climate change action?

    On the second video, Karly Mathews there blames the liberals and environmentalists for why Republicans don’t support climate change action. This is deflection and BS. Republicans look for any excuse as to why they won’t support it, but it comes down to Republican distaste for business regulation and taxation in the end. It’s not Ocasio-Cortez’s fault. She’s just their scapegoat.

    That distaste in Republicans is why any legislation they would support would only be things like tree planting or a very, very watered down carbon tax. In effect, doing almost nothing, but still hoping to get some enviro street cred for the votes in the next election.

    On “environmentalism needs to start on the local level”, what does she think environmentalists have been doing the last half century? They’ve been at the local level just as much, if not more, as they’ve been at the state and federal levels. Again, this is delay tactic BS – she’s saying we should really just handle this stuff locally first, then may (maybe) we can get to it at a federal level.

  3. jimbills Says:

    The Lincoln Project is composed of coastal and urban elites and intellectuals. They live in parts of the country where Democrats usually win, so their representation is limited. They do NOT represent the vast horde of Republican votes in the hinterlands, and they have a hard time understanding them – just as Democrats have a hard time understanding them. Everyone is in their own bubbles and they ‘think’ most people are like them, but this is a false impression only allowed because most of the information they get comes from that bubble.

    Trump, as unlikely a hero as is possible to imagine for someone living in the country working a blue collar job and struggling to pay the bills, tapped into that side of the electorate. But that side is also where most Republicans get elected. The Lincoln Project might not be a super minority numerically, but they are derned sure an electoral minority.

    Trump is not the black sheep. He’s the flock.

    Bobby Jindal joins Trump think tank

    Bobby Jindal slams ‘short-sightedness’ of never-Trumpers: ‘They should admit they are Democrats’

  4. jimbills Says:

    Daily on Energy: Exclusive details of Senate GOP climate plan

    “Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming — all representing major oil and gas producing states — are releasing the “American Energy, Jobs, and Climate” plan, which aims to cut global emissions up to 40% from today’s levels by 2050….”

    40% less than today would still mean the U.S. would have higher yearly emissions than India, the 3rd highest country’s carbon emissions (China 1st, U.S. 2nd). We’d emit somewhere over 100 Gt (CO2 only) in that time frame (2021 to 2050) with that goal, roughly 1/3 the total the U.S. has already emitted over 200 years.

    In addition, IF the U.S. announced that 40% goal to the rest of the world, it would be a gigantic FU to every other country and their plans for carbon reductions. World leader much?

    Other quotes:

    ‘The plan calls for familiar ideas favored by Republicans, such as developing and deploying clean energy technologies, including carbon capture, advanced nuclear reactors, and battery storage, and exporting those innovations abroad.’

    ‘The Republicans don’t acknowledge any need to reduce fossil fuel use or development. They make clear they continue to oppose “mandates, regulations, and taxes.” That would seem to include regulation of methane emissions.’

    The question to ask is why would Republicans decide now to propose a plan? Is it right to be optimistic that they’re even talking about it, or is it more accurate to be suspicious that they’re only announcing this as a way to hamstring the more aggressive Biden plans?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: