Centerfield

I'd be more interested in a Centrist/Moderate platform on environmental issues.

Five aspects of a Republican energy policy have been demonstrated by the current Republican administration:
1 the Strategic petroleum reserviors have been refilled as part of "being prepared"
2 the price of gasline has been allowed to fluctuate, and shortages have thereby been avoided
3 drilling in the Alask Wildlife Refuge has been advocated, as a way of helping ensure our future energy needs are met.
4 our administration has strived mightily to retain good relationships with oil-producing states, despite obvious points of tension in our relationships.
5 Iraq wasn't "just for oil", but the current administration is acting in ways it hopes will ensure a healthy long-term relationship with a major supplier of oil. Such a relationship might also encourage other major suppliers to act sensibly toward us.

As a moderate eco-freak, I do not find myself offended by any of the above.

If the administration wanted a suggestion from me, it would be this: impose a steadily-increasing gasoline tax in coming years, with all proceeds used to fund free public transit alternatives. The gas tax would need to increase gradually, so as not to disrupt the economy overmuch, but both the reduced demand for gas at higher prices and the reduced demand for gas by those who use free public transit instead would lessen our vulnerability to opponents in oil-producing countries in this time of war.

I am not offended by any individual proposal on your list either, Man in the Middle, but I am worried by the fact that the sole focus is on oil. A sustainable energy policy needs to rely on more than one single non-renewable resource, particularly when the price of that resource is largely determined by a cartel of countries of questionable allegiance. The excess focus on oil is harmful to preparations for the inevitable transition to alternative resources. And while there are some genuine eco-conservatives among the Republicnans, given Bush's history with the deceptively titled "Clean Air" and "Healthy Forest" initiatives, I am naturally distrustful that the current administration is among them. They know the level of public support there exists for environmental initiatives, and are thus forced to pay lip service to the ideals, but they don't seem willing to follow through, as when Bush declined to embrace tougher mileage requirements in favor of research into fuel-cells... then failed to divert any funding in that direction.

Still, I'm trying to keep an open mind. Andrew Sullivan had a recent brief post on "envirocons," including a few links. I haven't had a chance to look through them thoroughly, but they may be a good place to start discussion. The general focus seems to be "protecting the environment through sustaining economic progress," which would raise doubts in the mind of any traditional greenie as to their real agenda, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I have the chance to examine them more fully.

They are:

The Copenhagen Consensus
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
"Copenhagen Consensus is based on the aim to improve prioritization of limited means. The world is faced with a countless number of challenges such as diseases, environmental degradation, armed conflicts and financial instability. Copenhagen Consensus takes a new and critical-analytical approach to assessing the effects of international opportunities for solving the challenges."

Not much there yet, and their format keeps messing up in my browser, but it bears watching.

PERC-Property and Environment Research Center
http://www.perc.org/
"Improving Environmental Quality Through Markets"

I have the same doubts about the priorities of this organization as I expressed earlier in the comments to the article from Reason, but I'll reserve judgment.

FREE -Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment
http://www.free-eco.org/
"FREE is an organization devoted to social change that harmonizes environmental quality with responsible liberty and economic progress."

The fact that their stated audience is "federal judges, law professors, business leaders, and environmental entrepreneurs" tells me a lot about their focus, and I worry that this may be a reflection of the "Bush-style" environmentalism about which I expressd doubts above.

A Better Earth
http://www.abetterearth.org/
"Alternative approaches to environmental concerns"
"Often, regulations do achieve the desired results. But if they don't, new environmentalists want to discover how to create incentives that can tap into human creativity and produce even more effective solutions in the future. Instead of naïve faith in political action or market-based approaches, the new environmentalism wants to find out 'what works.'"

This organization is meant as a response to the "anti-capitalism" of traditional environmentalism, and they seem to be taking a "center approach" between government control and free market solutions. Once again, I haven't seen enough to judge, but the fact that they are celebrating the death of the Kyoto Protocol on their splash page gives me some doubts. So far, they seem to be too much of the "unless it works perfectly, no regulation is best" variety.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a healthy distrust of organizations which propose market-driven environmental standards, and tend to believe they favor markets over the environment when push comes to shove. Still, since my concern is the goal of environmental protection rather than the success of any individual party, if this is what it takes for the Republicans to embrace environmental concerns, it is to the advantage of all of us.

I think MiM puts it pretty well.

Where I fault the Bush admin (and this fault should not be attributed solely to them) is for not making any moves towards emphasizing an overarching long-term energy policy that starts by putting all sorts of ideas on the table. Instead, they just advocate the portions of an energy policy that are in their own policy bag.

Part of a long-term coherent policy has to be to expect that we're probably going to need to find and use most or all oil and coal reserves. So I'm not that troubled by the idea of trying to responsibly go after oil in places like ANWR, especially if it's part of a compromise that goes along with conservation and increased efficiency. Upticks in overall fleet fuel economy standards should have already been accelerated. It's currently too easy for people to choose a 6-cylinder car instead of a 4, or an 8-cylinder car over a 6. It's a hard policy choice, but I think we have to make it. People want the freedom to choose a more powerful and responsive car, and they'll keep making such choices unless we put a higher price tag on it.

A gas tax is a touchy issue. I think it's worth considering, instead of dismissing it out of hand. Some may have considered many ramifications of it and decided it's a bad idea, and that's fine as far as it goes. But if the nation is to decide the case on its merits and demerits, they need to be exposed to the pros(decreased consumption, increased revenue) and cons(regressive, inflationary). People aren't just going to trust the wonks. So again, let's put it on the table.

And environmental groups need to stop suggesting that hard choices are easy choices by giving one-sided views of subjects and resorting to reflexive demonization of corporations. Especially those that rely on conservation as a centerpiece. Conservation of fuel is a worthwhile idea. But that doesn't mean we should eschew harvesting renewable energy sources like hydro and wind just because they spoil the view or flood the valley. Nor should we hold struggling nations to the same standards as wealthy nations, piously telling them not to use DDT or build that dam or use that cheap inefficient engine.

And of course any long-term policy has to have some focus on the fact that one day the coal and oil will be gone. Some have faith that a free market left to respond creatively to this fact as an opportunity will come up with a solution all by itself. I don't have quite that much faith. That's a little too panglossian for me. Economists always tell us that past results are no guarantee of future performance, and that's always worth keeping in mind.

Jeremy, you might be interested in this editorial by a co-founder of greenpeace who has left them to start his own organization that consults on sustainable development.

It also mentions this new group's URL, greenspirit.com.

It touches on some of the excesses of the environmental movement that while well-meaning are ultimately misguided and even harmful. My feeling regarding some in the green movement is that that are often too strident to be willing to strike a balance that respects basic needs.

You might be interest to know additionally that the co-author of the piece, Nick Schulz, is a corporate lobbyist/astroturfer.

While the piece is right about Hydro projects and GM crops, it's position on DDT is wholey unsuportable by real science. By trying to tar idiots and scientists with the same brush, it's very cleark what Nick is trying to do - namely, make it seems like supporting DDT is the same as supporting the use of GM crops, while in actuality, aside from corporate mouthpieces like AEI and Steve Milloy, there is no reasonable view that supports the use of DDT.

As in gas guzzling SUVS?
Gas tax needs to go up and used for development of alternatives. For one, 50 mi per gal. vehicles and lower priced, lower cost type vehicles for use around cities. (Non-union but reas. treatment is okay with me.)
Know your history? The corps. involved with autos, oil, and pouring freeway cement put the railroads, for one ex., out of business. Also, airplane industry and noise to cities backed by federal funding
corp welfare.
Know that Eisenhower was against using freeways inside a city and advised keeping them at the edge.


SUGGESTION & RECOMMENDATION: HAVE TOPIC AND THOUGHTFUL SOLUTIONS SECTS. A FEW TIMES A WEEK. END RESULT IS WE CAN KEEP AS VIEWS ON TOPICS FOR OTHERS TO SEE ALSO. OUR THOUGHTFUL VIEWS AS THINKING CENTRISTS/MODERATES-- SEPARATE FROM THE OVERNUMEROUS NEED TO FILL TIME AND SPACE MEDIA ...

LUCID DREAMS WAS A FUN TYPE TOPIC FOR PEOPLE. BUT, CAN'T MIX IN THE MORE SERIOUS.

FOR ONE:
CONSUMPTION TAX VS. INCOME TAX

NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING AND SERVICE FOR ALL CITIZENS?

Alex

The 'Pubs love the environment when it's around their house. They want to have it both ways, be thoght of as caring folks while sniping at the environmentalists by taking potshots at the extremists. But with the high price and the political ramifications of oil gluttony, coupled with over bulging waistlines, raise taxes on gaas/oil and tax junk and fast food, while sponsoring practical bike paths and efficient mass transit, not some energy and money wasting heavy rail setups. Let's be green but thrifty and practical