Because the Republicans have turned against the environment

In 1990, Congress passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act of 1970, inter alia taking action against acid rain, urban smog and ozone.

The legislation has been very successful, significantly reducing pollution at a much lower cost than expected by commercial interest groups.

Sometimes I see people trying to use acid rain as an example of environmental alarmism:

well, it was a big deal in the 1980s, but hardly anyone talks about it now.

But the reason we don’t talk about it is that politics Resolved largely the problem.

However, what is really striking from today’s perspective is the fact that the 1990 legislation was passed by Congress with an overwhelming majority. bipartisan majorities.

Among those who voted Yes was a first-term senator from Kentucky named Mitch McConnell.

That was then.

This is now:

the Reducing Inflation Act, which, despite its name, is primarily a climate bill with additional help from health care reform, hasn’t received a single Republican vote.

Now the IRA is not a left-wing plan to bring Big Government into everyone’s life:

it does not force Americans to go green; relies on subsidies to promote low-carbon technologies, likely creating many new jobs.

So why is the Republican opposition from scorched earth?

The immediate answer is that the Republican Party has grown strong anti-environmental over time.

But why?

Pew Research Center polls show the growing partisan gap on environmental policy.

In the 1990s, Republicans and self-identified Democrats weren’t that different in their environmental views:

Republicans were less likely than Democrats to say we should do whatever it takes to protect the environment, more likely to say environmental regulation harms the economy, but the gaps were relatively small.

Since then, however, these gaps have become abysses, and not symmetrically:

Democrats have gotten a little more supportive of environmental action, but Republicans have gotten much less supportive.

Most of the divergence is quite recent and occurs around 2008.

I can’t help but point out that the Republican belief that protecting the environment harms the economy soared just during the time when revolutionary technological advancement in renewable energy was making reducing emissions cheaper than ever. Before.

Republican voters could follow the lead of politicians and media figures.

So why have conservative opinion leaders turned anti-environmental?

It is not about believing in the free market and opposing government intervention.

One of the most surprising aspects of the recent energy controversies is the extent to which Republicans have tried to use state power to promoting polluting energy sourceseven when the private sector prefers alternatives.

The Trump administration has unsuccessfully attempted to force power companies to continue burning coal even when other energy sources were cheaper.

Currently, as reported New York TimesMany Republican state treasurers are trying to punish banks and other businesses for trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What about the cynical view that the GOP is simply in the pockets of fossil fuel interests?

Of course, the money talks and contributions from coal and, to a lesser extent, oil and gas flow mainly to Republicans.

But the Inflation Reduction Act, which will open up many business opportunities, has been supported by several large corporations, including energy companies like BP and Shell.

The Republicans were impassive.

What has happened, I would say, is that environmental politics has been embroiled in the culture war, which, in turn, is largely driven by issues of race and ethnicity.

This, I suspect, is why the partisan gap over the environment widened so much after the United States elected its first black president.

One particularly noteworthy aspect of the Times investigative report on the punishment of state treasurers of companies seeking to limit greenhouse gas emissions is how these officials condemn such companies as “awake.”

Waking up usually means talking about racial and social justice.

On the right, which is increasingly defined by attempts to curtail the rights of heterosexual non-Christian white Americans, it has become a offensive term.

Teaching students about the role of racism in American history is bad because it is insightful.

But apparently so are many other things, such as Cracker Barrel offering meatless sausages and concerns about climate change.

This may not make much sense intellectually, but you can see how it works emotionally.

Who tends to take care of the environment?

Often people who also care about social justice, or that, or the global elites.

(Climate science is a global enterprise.)

Even Republicans who need to know more will not break with the party’s anti-scientific stance.

As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney glove had a decent environmental record; however, he joined Eva and another Republican congressman in voting against the IRA. (Law on the reduction of inflation)

This means that those people hoping for bipartisan climate efforts are probably fooling themselves.

Environmental protection is now part of the culture war, and neither policy details nor rational arguments matter.

c.2022 The New York Times Company