No to Waxman-Markley, Yes to Republican-Environmentalism

Nacilbupera is a Republican-environmentalist. We have always purchased the smallest, most fuel-economic car that would meet our personal or family needs. We have used our Trek bicycle and our feet as primary means of transportation during our schooling years when we didn’t need a car. We use public buses when it makes economic and practical sense. We don’t idle our cars in the morning and work in the same town we live. We generally purchase Energy Star appliances, acutely so when we can recuperate the additional investment. We turn off lights and are converting to compact fluorescent light bulbs in our home as our incandescent ones burn out. We take short showers and avoid over-watering our lawn. We keep our home cool in the winter and warmer in the summer. We recycle newspaper, steel, and aluminum. We enjoy watching betimes “Planet Green” and keep our eyes vigilant for ideas and technologies we can implement on our meager budget.

Nacilbupera loves our planet. We are awed by the divers creatures—minute and gargantuan--and the breathtaking scenery and vast expanses both in and out of our protected parks. Nacilbupera despises smog and pollution as they detract from the vista and create health risks. Indeed, Nacilbupera believes the majority of Americans love their environment so much they are willing to take small sacrifices to keep American beautiful. So far, both Republican- and Democratic-environmentalists would both wholeheartedly support the ideas we have addressed.

Yet a Republican-environmentalist contrasts to a Democratic-environmentalist in two fundamental ways. First, the level of government involvement: Republicans believe that government should encourage environmentalism, while Democrats believe it should be forced, mandated, taxed, and bureaucratically controlled. The perfect example of this is the proposed “Waxman-Markey Bill” aka “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” aka “cap and trade bill.” The bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus in turn reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane and are contrasted to the smog and pollutant gases measured by the federal and state governments including carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. In other words, the bill is aimed at decreasing global temperature not directly at fighting pollutants and preserving nature.

There is no debate that the Waxman-Markely Bill will cost Americans more money; what is at question is how much. Estimates range between $100-$1500 annually per household in energy costs with significant increases in federal debt and fuel prices. Democrats have hijacked the environmental debate and turned it into a global warming crisis. Nacilbupera believes that while there is ample evidence to support global warming (e.g. worldwide glacier melt), it is difficult to pinpoint causes (volcanoes and the sun itself are two major variables) and even more unpredictable to suggest future temperatures. While Nacilbupera does not oppose curbing greenhouse gases, we are opposed to a heavy-handed Democratic mandated solution on an already overtaxed citizenry with a scandalously overspent Congress. A better solution would be to establish a voluntary fund that concerned citizens, unions, and corporations could donate to provide the government funds with which to curb gases through things like clean coal technology research or tax credits for alternative fuel source (electric, hydrogen, etc) vehicles. Finally, if developing nations like China and India do not the same (which is unlikely) the projected impact on global temperature is little to nothing and all the money of Waxman-Markley will have been wasted.

The second way a Republican-environmentalist differs is in supporting all forms of energy production (i.e. “all of the above”) to support the demands of our growing population. Nacilbupera wholeheartedly embraces zero-emissions nuclear power (including our support for Utah’s first nuclear power plant—Blue Castle—to be located in Green River), expansion of domestic oil & gas drilling (shame on Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for cancelling drilling leases earlier this year on our Utah lands!), solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, and hydroelectric. Democratic-environmentalists have an excuse ready not to do anything: wind turbines kill birds, solar panels block view, nuclear you have to actually store the waste, and so forth. America doesn’t need a California-style energy shortage Nacilbupera experienced several years ago under the hand of Democratic ex-Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic California Legislature. Some of the more extreme Democratic-environmentalists, advocates of so-called “sustainable development” philosophy are actually hostile to humans wanting to reduce total human population through diminished growth rates including abortion rather than researching solutions through science and exploration. As we have stated our principles previously, Nacilbupera is Pro-Life and if need saying, Pro-Human.

In summary being a Republican-environmentalist means protecting your environment, conserving resources, and promoting energy development while at the same time feeding your family, keeping taxes low to encourage parental time with children, and letting government focus on national defense and protection from terrorism.