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.

California's Special Election & Economic Disaster

Politics in California has particular meaning to Nacilbupera as we lived there before our present abode. Indeed, we abashedly reveal our vote for Schwarzenegger back in the days of the 2003 Special Election (regrettably, we wish we had voted for Tom McClintock!!) to rid ourselves of Gray Davis.

California for the past few decades has been and is a blue state. The Democrats control everything, especially the legislature where they have 60/40 majorities. Occasionally a Republican will pop into a statewide elected office. Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican.

Californians have been voting themselves into debt for years. It seems as though nearly every proposed bond or spending bill that was proposed to the voters was passed. Spend, spend, spend. Raise taxes and spend. Pay for healthcare and schooling of illegal aliens so more will cross the border! Of course, most of the Propositions were put on the ballot by the Democratically-controlled legislature. Of all the blame to be doled out, the Democrats in the legislature need to be held most accountable--who else is there to blame?? It becomes the goal of every astute voter in California to throw out as many Democrats as possible and replace them with McClintock-like Republicans who actually care about spending wisely.

The budget deficit is so bad now in California they are voting tomorrow whether to raise taxes to pay for all the spending mess they are in. The Propositions are a shame except for the "slap on the wrist" 1F which forbids raises on government officials during budget shortfalls. Yet Californians are beginning to wise up. A recent poll showed all the Propositions failing except 1F (graphic, Sacbee.com). Californians realize that giving more money to a Democratically controlled legislature will NOT solve the problem; cutting social programs will.

The Special Election Californians REALLY need is a 2003-style Special Election, but instead of the Governor, throw out the liberals in the legislature. Call it a "California Tea Party" if you will. And there is seemingly widespread support to do so. In a recent Field Poll study a mere 14% of California voters approved of their state legislature while a massive 74% disapprove--the lowest in Field Poll recorded history. That's even lower ratings than the 24% approval rating Gray Davis had before we voters threw him out in our 2003 Special Election.

What Nacilbupera vigorously opposes is a so-called "California Bailout." Such a bailout would be better-termed an "Illegal Alien Bailout" in honor of such "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco (though SF is just the tip of the blame game as the whole state is guilty). Nacilbupera is strongly opposed to any bailout as we way, way, way overdid the bailout thing and are getting our whole country messed up. Mitt Romney was right: we should have never bailed out the automakers, but rather let them file Chapter 11 and emerge leaner and stronger. Nacilbupera rejects the notion we should have to pay for unwise social program spending of others--besides, frankly, we don't even have the money for a California Bailout should we even desire one.

California won't fail because at this 11th hour the voters are beginning to take back their state.