I understand why climate change is an issue.
It could swamp many of the world’s most populous cities, cause severe drought worldwide and perhaps trigger wars over water. Ocean acidification could potentially cause havoc in the marine environment.
What I don’t get is why Republicans have been denying climate change's existence rather than leading the charge against it.
It is real. Peer reviewed literature has backed the theory with remarkable consistency for years and, while the consensus is hard to quantify, a rather sizable majority of climatologists support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Insurance companies are starting to reckon with it — 2014 was the warmest year on record and most ironically of all, melting sea ice is now letting oil companies drill in the Arctic Ocean.
Honestly, at this point, any major public figure telling you that it’s not real is either on FOX News (whose second largest shareholder is prince of a petrostate), a staunch George W. Bush ally (who was an oil tycoon) or a Republican politician receiving part of the $900 million dollars some other oil magnates are throwing at the party in the 2016 elections. But to hear it from them, it’s the climatologists who have a conflict of interest.
It's counterintuitive. Why on earth aren’t Republicans climbing over one another to demand immediate action against climate change?
The party talks a lot about future generations. Not burdening our children and grandchildren with debt is their usual rationale for fiscal conservatism. Protecting our freedoms for our children to enjoy is usually somewhere in foreign policy discussions as well. So why should we throw our grandchildren under the bus when it comes to climate change?
In terms of increasing national security, which the GOP so loves to talk about, decreased dependence on fossil fuels would further reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and weaken the influence of Iran and Venezuela. A high-ranking admiral has claimed that climate change is the biggest national security threat facing America. It’s definitely possible to see his point.
One estimate put the cost of the 9/11 attacks and the wars that followed them at $3 trillion. Climate change’s economic impact, while hard to quantify, will likely do a fair bit more through small cuts to many different sectors.
And, quite frankly, it’s hard to see ISIS doing as much damage to as many American cities as rising sea levels could. Only nuclear war, a modern day Black Death or a full-out cyber attack would be quite as devastating. Every national security hawk that really cares about protecting American lives and property should be rallying behind the cause.
For the Republican interested in projecting American strength and leadership abroad, what better way than to innovate on a global challenge facing all of humanity and create the innovations that will change the world? For the conservative who loves to throw out statistics on employment, a serious government effort to address climate change could produce millions of jobs. Tesla Motors is already showing that it's quite possible to develop a major, profitable company focused upon sustainability.
Looking out for future generations? International prestige? Energy independence? Job creation? Strengthening national security? If the Republicans are, then why aren't they on the forefront of the
There are some things I don’t think I’ll ever understand.