How did Global Warming become a left wing vs. right wing issue?

Question

Why is it that is you believe in Global Warming you are on the left and if you deny it you're on the right?

Regardless of whether or not you think it exists, doesn't conserving energy and making the air cleaner make sense? It benefits everyone!

I don't see how some people are against this!

Answer 1

"Global warming is a very serious problem"
-George W. Bush-
When even GWB admits global warming is a problem maybe you should pay attention.

Answer 2

It actually predates global warming and goes back to other environmental legislation.

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay got involved in politics because he hated the regulations that government placed on pesticides (he was in the exterminator business). Likewise, many conservatives did not like the degree of control contained in the first generation of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts (having government agencies decide the appropriate technology to reduce polution from new major sources -- e.g. new power plants, major factories and refineries).

On Clean Air and Clean Water, the conservatives originally supported a cap and trade type system. From a free-market economics perspective, such a system makes sense because it recognizes that there is a cost to pollution (the health impact on people downwind and downstream) and places that cost on the polluter. The polluter can then decide whether it is a cheaper to reduce the pollution from their source or to buy spare credits from another polluter. In addition, such a system gives an incentive for the development of more cost-efficient technology.

The conservatives have opposed such a system on global warming because of the difficulty of implementing a fair system. Contrary to some suggestions, it is clear that there will be a cost on future generations if there are not drastic reductions in green house gases. However, those are future generations, and, as with other issues, it is easier to pass on the costs to the future rather than give up the benefits we receive today from the status quo.

Answer 3

This is a very good question. I asked a somewhat similar one yesterday - "Do you know of any liberal anthropogenic global warming skeptics?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApKvie5J_.B1pnQlT7eTH0fsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071029112829AA3u4UJ

While there are many conservatives who acknowledge anthropogenic global warming (some famous ones are Bush, Gingrich, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Brownback - those last 2 are Creationists, by the way), it's true that virtually everyone who denies the issue is a conservative.

My explanation is that almost everything in the USA has become politicized, including many scientific issues. Stem cell research and teaching evolution in schools are 2 notable examples. On many such issues, conservatives take a faith-based approach over a scientific one. The same is true of global warming - many conservatives seem to have faith that humans are not responsible or that it's not a critical problem despite the vast amounts of scientific evidence otherwise. I think liberals in general hold science in higher regard than conservatives.

Answer 4

It's not a left wing v. right wing issue, although some people try to cast it that way.


Newt Gingrich just published a book on a conservative view of global warming. He's very green.

Historically, many republicans have been leaders in the conservation movement.

Global Warming is not an us or them matter. It's some that that we all need to work on together to find the best solutions.

Answer 5

Sure conserving energy and clean air are things people of any political persuasion can support.

The problem is that the global warming advocates are not using proper science to advance their agenda.

The Kyoto Protocols and other concepts tied to the concept of global warming have as much to do with the advancement of a socialist agenda as they do combating pollution.

If the global warming conspirators will stop lying and change their goals to making a cleaner environment you might be able to get a few more conservatives on board.

Until then kindly stop p!ssing on my leg and telling me it is raining.

Answer 6

People who like rap music have no particular political affilliation. People who 'believe in global warming' are simply educated, informed and do not have their belief system driven by their politics. Please remember, that the Pentagon issued a report that said global warming is the greatest threat to western civilization in history. Is The Pentagon 'left wing'? Not so much.

Answer 7

Because it is left-wing politicians who have brought it up and campaigned on it. And just like many politicians do, they are exaggerating about what global warming will cause to be able to use people's fear to get them to vote the way they want them to.

Of course, we should be sensible but this is not about making sense. This is about politics trying to come up with a just cause.

I think everyone who can't see how far gone this has gotten should read the following article which gives links that show just that.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=dceb518c-802a-23ad-45bf-894a13435a08&Region_id=&Issue_id=

I don't follow or condone radical techniques to get votes by either party. I am not a blind Bush follower and am against many of the things he does. I look for the truth in any issue. It's sometimes very confusing, but for myself it is better than being blind.

I must add that A plague on your houses's answer is right on target. Now there's someone who looks at the issues.

Answer 8

You've obviously swallowed the liberal bait; hook, line and sinker. I suggest you learn to form your own thoughts, and stop regurgitating what you read online and on MSNBC.

Many conservatives, myself included, believe in global warming. And the idea that only liberals want to "conserve energy and make the air cleaner" is such a simplification it sounds like a third grader's logic.

Liberals are promoting a radical, neo-agrarian model--the same model they've been promoting since the 1960s. Their proposals to stop global warming would decimate the economy. They also have exaggerated the dangers and risks of global warming. They talk about Republicans being "fear mongers" because they warn of the very real risk of terrorists attacking our major cities, then tell fairy tale stories of New York City and all of Florida disappearing into the ocean in the next 20 years.

There are clear solutions to global warming. Funny enough, the pro-green Kennedy's rioted when windmill farms were about to be built near their compound in Mass. Like Gore in his private jet, apparently all the sacrifices for the environment are designed for the prols, not the elites.

Bush is pushing the technology of hydrogen fuel cells. Repubs also want to mirror France (yes, France) which gets 80% of their domestic power needs from nuclear energy. That alone will greatly reduce the global output of CO2 and other gases. But the Kyoto measures which Bush vetoed would have forced draconian cuts on US businesses, while allowing Indian and Chinese manufacturers to continue and even increase their CO2 production. The outflow of jobs to those countries would have quadrupled as manufacturers fled to the third world to avoid the restrictions in the US.

Unlike Dems, which make broad prounouncements and speeches, Repubs are offering real solutions. But they are realistic (adult) about the dangers of global warming, and the dangers of over-reacting to global warming. Global warming can be decreased, but not stopped. It would take a massive de-industrialization to acheive this, and the world economy could not survive. Al Gore might have to give up his private jet.

Global warming will be limited responsibly, if we let the adults (Repubs) address the problem. But people have to remember that weather patterns have fluctuated throughout history, and people have always adopted to those fluctuations. Sea levels will rise. But only gradually, not in massive tidal waves as Gore and co. pontificate. People will adapt. The "grain belt" will probably move north a couple hundred miles. This will actually benefit Canada and Russia, which have huge areas of land which will one day be arable and harvestable.

Change and adapt. That is the response to global warming. Wailing and gnashing of teeth is a child's response.

Answer 9

I as a conservative support ecology, what I oppose is hypocrite pigs like al gore mr mega consumer and all you lib pukes who are consumers just like the rest of us, unless you live off the land and your home is a cave just shut the **** up.

Answer 10

I got a kick out of the answer that said it would destroy the world's economy to really clean up our act! What if we leave the economy intact, but lose the world?????? (Or, at least all the living things except the cockroaches--which we KNOW can live thru' anything!)

Answer 11

Man-made global warming is a scam. And more and more people are realizing it. I'll listen to scientists not politicians. Every single claim made by man-made global warming activists has been dunked. Every single prediction to date (those predictions that were suppose to be happening by now) made by man-made global warming activists have failed to come true. Is global warming real? Yes and it has been for several hundred years. Is it an apocalypse? No.

Besides, how the hell am I suppose to take this seriously?

http://globalwarminglife.com/articles/science-news/cattle-farm-emissions-leading-environmental-pollution/

"A University of Chicago study examined the average American diet and found that all the various energy inputs and livestock emissions involved in its production pump an extra 1.5 tons of CO2 into the air over the course of a year, which would be avoided by a vegetarian diet. Thus, the researchers found, cutting out meat would do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than trading in a gas guzzler for a hybrid car."

Short answer: It is insanity. Longer answer: What the hell, so to save the planet we should all stop eating meat. What's more, hybrid cars and carbon credits won't be enough anyway, cows do more harm than EVERY mode of modern transportation. And just not eating the meat won't be enough. Hell, if we don't eat the meat less cows will die and that means more global warming. So no, we have to kill every single cow to save the planet. But the vegetarians will tell us cows have rights to, they're living beings to, so we shouldn't eat them. So now we have to commit GENOCIDE to save the planet.

There's another side to it as well: propaganda. You did it yourself. If we don't accept man-made global warming, then we're obviously not for conserving energy or making the air cleaner. That is simply a lie. Nearly every Conservative I know or have heard or seen or read is all for clean energy for all sorts of reason. Less dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, cleaner air, better quality of living, less pollution. And yet Liberals, YES Liberals, ignore all of that to push the man-made global warming hysteria then turn around and lie about what those evil Conservatives want. That's propaganda. Liberals, AGAIN Liberals, blame President Bush for global warming (and everything else). Not once will any of these Liberals admit that President Bush has spent more on researching clean technologies than any other President. Again, ignoring the truth to further your own agenda is propaganda. Note that in both examples I said Liberals, not everyone who believes in man-made global warming. For perfect examples of propaganda see the posts by alyson c, suspensionsdontwork10 and pOrkrOd. Simply repeating a party line and falling back on insults and personal attacks.

Which brings me to the final point. It is not a left vs right issue. There are a lot of Republicans in and out of politics who believe in man-made global warming (I point to Shadowed above). There a lot of Democrats in and out of politics who do not believe in man-made global warming. And yet Liberals want us all to believe its a left vs right issue. And you never stop to ask yourself why. You just repeat it.