A Conservative Approach To Climate Change
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2012-08-16/conservative-approach-climate-change
Within the scientific community, there is a widespread consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change. But the issue remains highly divisive within American politics. While some conservative lawmakers deny that climate change is a problem, many worry that government actions and regulations will end up stifling growth. We talk with former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, who is proposing free-market solutions to address climate change and related issues.
Guests
Bob Inglis
Member, House of Representatives (R-SC)(1993-99, 2005-11)
Director, Energy and Enterprise Initiative, George Mason University
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am a yellow-dog Democrat (I'd almost vote for a yellow dog if it were running as a Democrat), but thank you, Bob Inglis. Thank you for taking the "theology" out of climate change: it's not a belief but a set of data, and the data clearly show that the climate is warming and that the warming is human caused. And more importantly, thank you, thank you for emphasizing the hidden costs of carbon-based energy. The health costs of coal-fired energy are only indirectly borne by the majority of us, if at all, but those who work in coal mines, live in coal mining regions, live near coal-fired plants bear the burden of health effects. The rest of us should share the burden, at least in part by sharing in the health care costs and cleaning up the environment around coal-fired plants. But more urgently, we should take the steps necessary to minimize the negative health and environmental effects of carbon-based energy by doing what we need to do to move to cleaner, more sustainable forms of energy.
Bob Inglis spoke eloquently at our (nonpartisan) Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) conference in July. We met with over 300 legislators to encourage them to support a carbon tax (with the revenue returned to taxpayers).
You can support this effort by joining Citizens Climate Lobby:
http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/
Start by listening to the next introductory call:
http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/introductory-call
We have about 60 chapters around the country and we're growing fast as more people realize they need to do something about climate change.
I wish the speaker would STOP saying that we are already paying the costs of our GHG emissions through such things as insurance prices. This is NOT TRUE. The costs imposed by our GHG emissions are being borne by people all over the world who cannot possibly afford to adapt to the changes in climate that they are experiencing. Unless we are going to raise our gas prices enough to internalize ALL GLOBAL costs imposed by climate change, Americans will not reduce their consumption enough to solve the problem. We need a VERY restrictive cap on US emissions and a trading system so that emissions are reduced by those for whom such reductions would be the most expensive.
He should also stop acting as if the US were going to be so virtuous in developing the technologies to reduce emissions (and then get rich selling them to the rest of the world). We have no virtue in this debate, we are overwhelmingly responsible for the problem. And the Chinese are already beating us as developing the technology to solve it. What we need to do is to be willing to pay what it will costs for us to reduce our emissions drastically.
Of course environmental economists all over the world have been saying this for decades - there's nothing new in what the guest is saying, just because one Republican has finally recognized the absurdity of "not believing in climate change."
This was one of the most maddening shows. I agree with the caller who said that others have been talking about this for 25 years or more and somehow a conservative talks about the real costs of energy production and it is news? Ingliss, and Kojo, neglected to note how there have been attempts to put a price on fossil fuels through cap and trade or carbon tax, efforts that have been soundly defeated by Republicans and conservatives in Congress. Sure companies will innovate if they think they can make a buck, but they will also innovate if governments make it a priority, and impossible for companies and the public to ignore what they are doing to the world's health and environment.
I appreciate Bob Ingliss' recent conversion on energy issues and if he wants to also convert his Neanderthal breathern, more power to him, but let's not pretend that it is visionary when so many have spent years beating this drum only to have it dismissed as environmental extremism.
Inglis is hardly a "recent" convert. Check him blasting the GOP on climate issues in 2010 when he was still in Congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRVlIT__w6A
Sure, the drum has been beaten for years, but that doesn't mean we can stop. We need to keep beating the drum until the problem is addressed and I applaud Inglis for taking the banner.
I came here to get a link so a few friends could listen to this segment, which sent me into fits of four letter words.
I was so delighted when the first couple callers-in politely expressed their frustration with Inglis, who was amazingly glib in response.
My jaw dropped, however, when Inglis expressed his view that Congressmen are sent to do "exactly what constituents tell them to," and that because of the conflicts of what to do in his first term--which IS politics, for heaven's sake!--he said it meant to "do nothing." Really? Leadership has no place in Congress?
Had I called in, I would have asked why he didn't simply bail and join Democrats. But no, there's money to be made in climate change through our free enterprise system.
Clearly, our free market system does NOT work when it's ill-informed, which was my takeaway from this segment.
I was appalled.