A Conservative View to a Sustainable Future
Like most rational people, I support cleaner energy, cleaner air, cleaner water, sustainable land use, etc. I believe that supporting environmental preservation and protecting our planet inherently enables long-term sustained socio-economic progress. In the United States, does that inherently make me a Democrat? Many people assume that just because I am pro-environment that must mean I only vote Democrat. I do not blame them; members of the Republican party have claimed that climate change is a hoax. An issue that is inherently scientific and academic has strangely exacerbated the political vitriol. So, if you believe in climate change can you also be a conservative, or are those two philosophies as polarized as today’s two-party system?
A re-examination of history would tell otherwise, that in fact a conservative climate change activist is a very real and legitimate political stance; but its voice has been overshadowed by the extremists. However, it was not always like this and it certainly does not always have to be like this. conservatives can and do believe in climate change. They do understand the risks it poses to socio-economic welfare and they do understand the value in preserving the environment.
Let’s take a quick trip down memory lane:
Clean Air Act of 1963
The Clean Air Act of 1963 was one the first eminent federal legislations regarding air pollution control. Before reaching Lyndon B. Johnson’s oval office, the legislation passed 401–21 in the House of Representatives and 89–11 in the Senate. That type of bipartisan support for an environmental legislation would be nearly impossible in today’s political climate, but there was a time in our shared history that liberals and conservatives could work together to protect the environment in a landmark resolution.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) remains today as a pillar of the permitting and environmental process for government approval for civil infrastructure projects. Although the bill was introduced by Democratic Senator, Henry Jackson, it passed the House 372–15 and unanimously passed the Senate. At this point in our Nation’s history, we were as closely aligned on our nation’s mission to protect the environment as we had ever been (and may ever will be).
Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
President Richard Nixon will always be remembered by his Watergate legacy. Prior to such instances, Nixon was a very popular Republican leader (previously serving as Senator of California). As a California Republican (yes, it is tough to believe there was a time that political identity thrived), President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) via executive order. Nixon may not be the best poster child because of Watergate, but his identity of a California Republic supporting environmental legislation is one that can become popular once again.
Clean Water Acts of 1956 and 1972
President Nixon’s biggest blemish on his environmental report card was his veto of the Clean Water Act of 1972. However, the senate and house were shared bi-partisan support for environmental protection insofar that the Senate overrode the President’s veto in a 52–12 ruling. The Clean Water Act had its origins in the 1956 Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, previously signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.
Clean Air Act of 1990
Even during the Reagan years of de-regulation could not galvanize widespread support to remove environmental legislation, just de-fund and un-enforce it. Under President George H.W. Bush that trend of Republican led environmental legislation from the Nixon era hit Phase II. The most notable of George H.W. Bush’s environmental bills was the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990s, which authorized programs for acid deposition control, 189 toxic pollutants, expanded on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and delegated vast amounts of authority to the EPA, enabling it make and enforce its own standards. Many Republicans today say the reach and powers of the EPA are way too strong, but it was actually conservatives that created and re-enforced the EPA’s authority.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
In many ways, George W. Bush carried on the legacy of his father’s presidency, and that theme was reflected in the furthering of environmental policies. The Energy Independence and Security Act built upon the Energy Policy and Conservation Act previously enacted by President Ford (also a Republican). In created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards which regulate vehicle emissions and miles per gallon efficiency of vehicles in the United States. CAFE standards were institutional in bringing environmental awareness from major public utilities like water, electricity, and gas to private industries in the transportation sector, mainly vehicle manufacturers.
Perhaps one of the most interesting maps I have come across is the comparison of the electoral college of the presidential election in 1960 to 2016. The West Coast has switched from being conservative to very liberal, and the Gulf Coast has switch from being liberal to very conservative. From this map, I see that social and political views are fluid decade to decade and generation to generation. People and communities can and do change over time. I also could not help but notice that some of today’s red states are “coal country” epicenters but others are actually pioneering the clean energy movement.
On one hand, West Virginia, Kentucky, Wyoming, etc. are heavy coal consumers and today’s competition to the EPA; on the other hand, Texas, Florida, and Arizona have some of the fastest growing clean energy markets in the country. How can this dichotomy work? I thought all Republicans were against climate change legislation, yet through history and today we see clear examples of conservatives paving the way for a sustainable future.
A conservative view is one that believes in market-based solutions and limiting government regulation in favor of the private sector to solve any market imperfections. As we have seen throughout history, identifying as a Republican is different than being a conservative, and being a conservative is dynamic relative to its liberal counterpart. So, in today’s world, what are ways in which you can be a conservative and support pro-environmental legislation?
Restructured Markets vs. Regulated Markets
The United States electricity sector is divided into several power pools. Some of these power pools are vertically integrated where a single utility owns the entire electricity supply chain, beginning with generation assets and carrying through transmission and distribution assets all the way to the point of the customers’ electrical panel. Other power pools are restructured, meaning the owners of the transmission and distribution infrastructure are separate from the owners of the generation assets, and the generation assets are an open market to the private sector. To be consistent with the conservative mindset, you should favor the restructured markets because they introduce more competition into the generation of electricity.
Within restructured markets, some are energy-only (i.e. ERCOT which governs over most of Texas) and some include parallel markets designed to incentivize ancillary services, additional capacity, and renewables (i.e. power pools in California, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast). The “purest” economic of these markets is Texas, which is a Red State, and is also one of the fastest growing solar and wind markets in the United States. Most other Red States follow the vertically regulated market structure, which is the least consistent with the conservative mindset and has locked them into thermal generator technologies of previous generations.
Utility Consensus vs. Distributed Energy Resources
In the realm of transmission and distribution of electricity, the United States employed the “utility consensus” model. The utility company served as the natural monopoly to serve all customers in a particular service territory since it did not make sense from a resources perspective to have competition in this supply chain segment. It worked really well to electrify the entire country; however, today there are competing regulatory models that can bring more affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy sources to customers.
These regulatory models including distributed energy resource technologies (i.e. rooftop solar panels and combined heat and power). These technologies introduce competition and customer choice into the market because a consumer can choose to receive grid electricity or produce their own power. Prosumer regulatory models align with the conservative viewpoint of open markets with competition; however, California, New York, Hawaii, and Minnesota (all blue states) are the current champions of this regulatory construct. Red states should introduce more retail competition and introduce distributed energy technologies to the market to be consistent with their conservative economic views.
Cap-and-Trade vs. Carbon Tax
Perhaps this is the most controversial topic today in environmental economics. Cap-and-trade markets sets the quantity for emissions (in the case of carbon pollution) or renewable generation (in the case of renewable portfolio standards), and the market identifies the price to meet these obligations. Conversely, a carbon tax sets the price for pollution (generally this could be the social cost of carbon) and the quantity of emissions reduction is the result of the tax. A great deal has been studied about the merits, advantages, and disadvantages of the cap-and-trade and carbon tax systems, and the circumstances that makes one market situation preferred over the other.
On balance, the carbon tax should be supported by conservatives. The carbon tax sets no guidelines on which technologies are used or the quantity at which they must be consumed. Rather, the carbon tax eliminates a market imperfection (the social cost of carbon) at its true cost; thus, this sets an even playing field where all costs are lined up against one another and the best technology wins. This type of competition on an even playing field that accounts for true costs is exactly what the conservative mindset upholds to.
Tax Cuts vs. Subsidies
Tax cuts and subsidies are also a hotly debated topic across many sectors, and the same can be said for the energy sector. Ostensibly, a tax cut is similar to a subsidy in that the government reduces a cost below the fair market value in a tax cut, and a subsidy reduces a price (from the consumer’s perspective) below the fair market value. The main difference is that tax cuts reduce government influence by removing themselves from the tax equation, whereas, a subsidy increase government influence by paying an entity an additional revenue stream. Given the dichotomy between the two, the tax cut fits more in-line with the conservative perspective.
So, why do Republican support subsidization of coal and fossil fuel extraction? Why do Republicans oppose renewable energy tax cuts? Understanding that both a tax cut and subsidy distort the market and are not aligned with conservative values, the lesser of the two evils is the tax cut approach. The real problem herein lies who benefits from that tax cut and subsidy, and is it supporting net economic growth (which is a topic for another time).
Where Do We Go from Here?
Contrary to popular belief, you can be a staunch conservative and support clean energy at the same time. This is a false pretense in the United States where the loudest voices from each party incorrectly represent the parties core values. You can be a conservative or a liberal that cares about the environment, you just see the policies and economics in a different light. Ultimately, climate change will continue to hit red states and blue states, and both conservatives and liberals will have to accept the realities of the situation, the only question that remains is not whether climate change is real, but rather how to be swiftly and effectively solve the matter in a just transition.