Conservatism and the Environment

[Bacle]

There are two problems with that approach.

It starts off with letting them control the debate and define what the debate even is. So anyone actually wanting push back on them is starting at a losing position.

And secondly you are framing it as the right needing to moderate the worst of the extreme lefts positions. That just means the right automatically loses just not as fast as if the left had total power.

A compromise between freedom and tyranny just means they get to control half of things and if you keep doing those kind of compromises it only gets worse, never better.

We need to push them back not accept their premise and slow them down a little.

I guess I am just going to have to spell it out explicitly, then.

The Right does not set the terms of the debate on the environment in the modern culture and political scene.

It can curb the worst of the rad-green ideas via things like the Climate Caucus, but the Right is in no cultural or political position to decide which environmental issues are legit or not.

Stop thinking the Right can 'win' on this by just ignoring or dismissing what the Left says; the people in the Climate Caucus get this.

 

[Bigking321]

So... that's it then?

We can't push them back? They get to push their totalitarian socialistic reforms through using the environment as a excuse and we can only slow down the worst parts?

I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[Cherico]

So... that's it then?

We can't push them back? They get to push their totalitarian socialistic reforms through using the environment as a excuse and we can only slow down the worst parts?

I don't think that's a good idea.

some times you have to give people the middle finger and tell them to fuck off.

 

[Bacle]

So... that's it then?

We can't push them back? They get to push their totalitarian socialistic reforms through using the environment as a excuse and we can only slow down the worst parts?

I don't think that's a good idea.

Stop thinking that all environmental policies will lead to socialism. That is a brainbug of the Right that has seriously hindered actually effectively curbing the rad-greens.

The Right can push back by making sure only sane and necessary environmental stuff happens.

The Right however cannot expect to be in a position to dictate what is a legit environmental issue in this generation, and only the existence of the Climate Caucus gives it any hope of maybe being in that position a generation or two from now.

To paraphrase Nick Fury "We deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be."

some times you have to give people the middle finger and tell them to fuck off.

And doing so let's them control all the legislation, all the policy, and leaves you completely powerless to actually do anything about the worst bits.

However, now that the Climate Caucus is a thing, we now have a vehicle to effectively curb the stupidest bits, and keep at least one hand on the wheel.

 

[Marduk]

The Right does not set the terms of the debate on the environment in the modern culture and political scene.

Yes. That is a massive problem. It needs to start contesting the terms. If it can't, it has to do whatever it takes to gain this capability.

It can curb the worst of the rad-green ideas via things like the Climate Caucus, but the Right is in no cultural or political position to decide which environmental issues are legit or not.

No, that's not the right's job. That's DNC's job, if they prefer to not lose elections by rad-green crazy escalation.

Stop thinking the Right can 'win' on this by just ignoring or dismissing what the Left says; the people in the Climate Caucus get this.

No, the right absolutely should not ignore the topic. But "ignore it or adapt a light, now with 90% less crazy version of what the rad-greens want" is a false binary.

The Right however cannot expect to be in a position to dictate what is a legit environmental issue in this generation, and only the existence of the Climate Caucus gives it any hope of maybe being in that position a generation or two from now.

You just don't get it. If the right just surrenders the terms of the debate, then "the next generation or two" will not miraculously become less crazy and fanatical, on the contrary, the other side will double down on the same working and proven effective mass influence operations that got us to the current mess, and in turn will make these generations so delusional that they will make the current rad-greens look moderate.
And then people like you will insist that GOP should adopt rad-green policies to prevent the excesses of the super rad-greens.

To paraphrase Nick Fury "We deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be."
And doing so let's them control all the legislation, all the policy, and leaves you completely powerless to actually do anything about the worst bits.

However, now that the Climate Caucus is a thing, we now have a vehicle to effectively curb the stupidest bits, and keep at least one hand on the wheel.

Conditional surrender is not victory.

 

[Zachowon]

If we give into what they want we lose the chance to ever go nuclear

 

[Bacle]

Yes. That is a massive problem. It needs to start contesting the terms. If it can't, it has to do whatever it takes to gain this capability.

Well the Climate Caucus is the first step in that direction, even if you refuse to believe it.

No, the right absolutely should not ignore the topic. But "ignore it or adapt a light, now with 90% less crazy version of what the rad-greens want" is a false binary.

90% less crazy might be the best the Right can manage for a while.

You just don't get it. If the right just surrenders the terms of the debate, then "the next generation or two" will not miraculously become less crazy and fanatical, on the contrary, the other side will double down on the same mass influence operations that got us to the current mess, and in turn will make these generations so delusional that they will make the current rad-greens look moderate.
And then people like you will insist that GOP should adopt rad-green policies to prevent the excesses of the super rad-greens.

You won't even have a chance of shifting things without the Climate Caucus, so you should be happy it's now a thing.

Before the Right had no real means of effectively fighting the rad-greens at all; now the Right at least has some way to fight back that might actually accomplish something.

Conditional surrender is not victory.

This isn't about 'victory', it is about survival and keeping the worst of the crazy from becoming policy and law.

If we give into what they want we lose the chance to ever go nuclear

This isn't about 'giving in', it is about recognizing that this shit matters to a growing part of the GOP youth and definitely matters to moderates, centrists, and disillusioned Dems.

The Right needs more than just it's old base and more than just people who are registered R's to win elections, assuming we can ever trust the ballot box again.

The Climate Caucus is the best chance the GOP has of actually getting nuclear power growth.

Too many people here are falling into a tribal brainbug about 'winning', 'victory' and such on this issue, instead of focusing on trying to curb the worst of the rad-green stuff with what power and clout we have now.

 

[Zachowon]

Well the Climate Caucus is the first step in that direction, even if you refuse to believe it.
90% less crazy might be the best the Right can manage for a while.

You won't even have a chance of shifting things without the Climate Caucus, so you should be happy it's now a thing.

Before the Right had no real means of effectively fighting the rad-greens at all; now the Right at least has some way to fight back that might actually accomplish something.
This isn't about 'victory', it is about survival and keeping the worst of the crazy from becoming policy and law.
This isn't about 'giving in', it is about recognizing that this shit matters to a growing part of the GOP youth and definitely matters to moderates, centrists, and disillusioned Dems.

The Right needs more than just it's old base and more than just people who are registered R's to win elections, assuming we can ever trust the ballot box again.

The Climate Caucus is the best chance the GOP has of actually getting nuclear power growth.

Too many people here are falling into a tribal brainbug about 'winning', 'victory' and such on this issue, instead of focusing on trying to curb the worst of the rad-green stuff with what power and clout we have now.

Bacle.
Either we push hard for nuclear and use that as our base for environmental issues, or we lose any chance at getting it.
That is basically the only thing that the right can do that doesn't give the left an inch for them to take a mile

 

[Marduk]

Well the Climate Caucus is the first step in that direction, even if you refuse to believe it.
90% less crazy might be the best the Right can manage for a while.

So which is it?
Is it going to start attacking the state of meta-debate about climate change, as in wtf are young people having hammered into their heads by activists in media and schools and how those activists should be stopped, or better yet, replaced by their ideological opposites, or are they going to push a milder version of that same propaganda?

It surely can't be both...

You won't even have a chance of shifting things without the Climate Caucus, so you should be happy it's now a thing.

We have already talked about it. You cannot even confirm that they share anything near your views on the matter, be realistic, how likely is it that they are going to be rightward of yours, considering what we know of the member's private views of the matter?

It's as if you saw some most leftward GOP members founding an "antiracism caucus" and then claimed that surely they are going to use it to totally own all the CRT promoters in DNC.
Theoretically possible, but what are the chances?

Before the Right had no real means of effectively fighting the rad-greens at all; now the Right at least has some way to fight back that might actually accomplish something.
This isn't about 'victory', it is about survival and keeping the worst of the crazy from becoming policy and law.

Making green policy platable is a double edged sword. It being platable won't make people more eager to reconsider it, quite the opposite. GOP strategy would be to first, oppose green policy, and second, in case of first priority being unachieveable, make it so the worst burdens of green policy affect the people who supported it the most, and that these people are as uncomfortable with those burdens as possible. That's one of the ways to make them think again.

This isn't about 'giving in', it is about recognizing that this shit matters to a growing part of the GOP youth and definitely matters to moderates, centrists, and disillusioned Dems.

These people are a job for GOP media and education caucus, to explain to millions that the greens are conning them, they should be pissed at them, and distrust anything a green activist says.

 

[Simonbob]

@Bacle, my only response is to say "It's a con job. Fuck off."

I can beleve you think it matters, I can also beleve you care about the enviroment.

I can't beleve that your average Green cares about anything but their watermelon bullshit. It's just virtue signaling. And, people like that don't think.

If it's outside the Approved Sources, if it doesn't make them feel like they're Good People(TM), while not requiring them to act, they are going to deny it.



Like I said. Leave "Climate Change" at the door, and we can chat. Otherwise, understand there's a lot of people on this site, myself included, who've been burned badly enough that we would rather have a glass of spiders that go along with this bullshit.

 

[Robovski]

Nuclear power generation. Low emissions, safe, and reliable. Should be a mainstay of any environmental plan and the backbone of electricity generation for the US. It's also a telltale of someone who isn't serious about doing what could be done to fix problems with pollution and power supply as so many people who claim to be green want it to disappear. They want it all to be this pie in the sky dream of everything running on a couple windmills and solar cells (and very rarely fusion, our perpetual in 10 years answer) because frankly they are idiots and have no idea what power generation entails so a light comes on when you flip a switch.
And that is my relevant point, the arguments and policies are driven by idiots and their fee-fees and ignorance and not by facts or anything resembling actual leadership to try to solve stated problems. There is no resolve to do things that will make an actual difference, but plenty of sin tax and theater that at best makes no difference. As you can tell Bacle, I'm kinda passionate about this, I'm 47, I've been aware of the Global Warming issue since the 80's and while Climate Change is a better term, really it's been an exercise in our collective ignorance more than anything else. But sure, let's see what the GOP quislings can come up with, it's not like both parties aren't complete disasters right and are deeply funded by wealthy interests invested in the status quo right?

 

[Bacle]

Conservative Climate Caucus

curtis.house.gov

For anyone who actually wants to see what the CCC is actually about.

Key points:
-Does not deny human activities impact the climate.
-Sees China as the main global polluter and aims to hold them accountable
-Does not want to do away with fossil fuels
-Wants to reduce emissions without reducing energy choices.
-Wants exportable solutions/ideas, not feel good measures

Also has 65~ members currently, from all over the nation.

 

[Morphic Tide]

*fucking finally* you actually cite something to show they aren't blankly drinking the flavor-aid!

 

[Bacle]

*fucking finally* you actually cite something to show they aren't blankly drinking the flavor-aid!

Yep; what they actually say is pretty antithetical to much of the Left; particularly the bit about keeping fossil fuels and holding China accountable.

 

[LindyAF]

@Simonbob the problem is that there is very little way to avoid the topic of climate change when the topic of the environment comes up, because it is something that people are concerned about, including the new Climate Caucus.

There are other environmental issues not related to climate change, and they deserve attention.

However, I'm not going to pretend environmental debates on the political level can realistically leave climate change out of the discussion.

I know people here do not like the topic and/or think it's fake/overblown, but it not going to go away or be left out of the conversation.

Accept it is a topic which the Right will have to deal with, and focus on fighting the worst rad-green 'solutions' to the issues, rather than trying avoid addressing them.

I guess I am just going to have to spell it out explicitly, then.

The Right does not set the terms of the debate on the environment in the modern culture and political scene.

It can curb the worst of the rad-green ideas via things like the Climate Caucus, but the Right is in no cultural or political position to decide which environmental issues are legit or not.

Stop thinking the Right can 'win' on this by just ignoring or dismissing what the Left says; the people in the Climate Caucus get this.

What massive uncontestable victories does the left have to their name on this issue? How many states get more power from solar and wind than from coal alone - let alone fossil fuels?

For the most part, the left wing environmental movement seems to mostly just consist of talking about how they really care about the environment, signing Big International Agreements about how they really ought to do something, and subsidizing power generation methods that charitably aren't quite ready. Also, promising that they're totally going to ban cars... just a few decades from now, when everyone involved is safely out of office and power.

IMO it's actually the reverse here. Any RW conservationism should and has to drop 1) fossil fuel scarcity concerns and 2) carbon emission concerns. The first one isn't an environmental concern and seems fairly unfounded, and regardless of your position on 2, you need to accept that this issue is hopelessly poisoned right now.

Instead, a RW conservationist movement has to be built on different issues - clean air, clean water, keeping synthetic chemicals of unknown long term effect out of the water and out of our food, ensuring that our posterity have wild spaces to enjoy.

 

[Bacle]

What massive uncontestable victories does the left have to their name on this issue? How many states get more power from solar and wind than from coal alone - let alone fossil fuels?

For the most part, the left wing environmental movement seems to mostly just consist of talking about how they really care about the environment, signing Big International Agreements about how they really ought to do something, and subsidizing power generation methods that charitably aren't quite ready. Also, promising that they're totally going to ban cars... just a few decades from now, when everyone involved is safely out of office and power.

IMO it's actually the reverse here. Any RW conservationism should and has to drop 1) fossil fuel scarcity concerns and 2) carbon emission concerns. The first one isn't an environmental concern and seems fairly unfounded, and regardless of your position on 2, you need to accept that this issue is hopelessly poisoned right now.

Instead, a RW conservationist movement has to be built on different issues - clean air, clean water, keeping synthetic chemicals of unknown long term effect out of the water and out of our food, ensuring that our posterity have wild spaces to enjoy.

You might want to read what the CCC says it's goals and views are, before deciding what positions the Right has to take on environmental issues.

The link is just a few posts up.

 

[Wargamer08]

You might want to read what the CCC says it's goals and views are, before deciding what positions the Right has to take on environmental issues.

The link is just a few posts up.

Have you read it yourself? Because I just went through it, then dug through all the tweets. It's a nothing burger. Big on how they are leading the way for GOP climate, totally zero on how or any kind of definitive statements beyond platitudes.

My take is it's a play to position themselves as the climate leadership for when the GOP finishes workshopping what voters want. At that point all their hyper-generalist statements narrow. Right now it's all China bad and US businesses good, free market good, communism bad.

Though I'm real unsure on how they think they can set 'climate goals' using government imposition and expect the 'free market' to just magically meet them. If they offer incentives, you'll get the typical green power subsidy blackhole we see now. If you set penalties, it's more crony capitalism sin tax where large companies can afford their indulgences and small ones get crushed.

 

[History Learner]

 

[Bacle]

Here is a good example of what bio-accumulation of drugs can do to the ecosystem, and why it's an legit issue that needs addressing.

 

[Megadeath]

Here is a good example of what bio-accumulation of drugs can do to the ecosystem, and why it's an legit issue that needs addressing.

That is so sad... How much meth must be going to waste to give the river enough concentration to have that effect?