I don't think it really does. It certainly didn't 40 years ago, environmentalism was pretty bi-partisan. Nixon probably signed more environmental legislation than any other president for example. The National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Marine Mammals Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Endangered Species Act all became law under his presidency. He also established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .
Of course, in US politics, you've got to choose a side. Environmentalism became anti-business/anti-conservative and conservatism became anti-environment/pro-business. Al Gore really cemented things, making environmentalism a second tier issue for the Democrats and a punching bag for Republicans.
Really, it's rather silly, like much of American politics. The cost to society of putting CO2 in the air may be debatable, but it certainly isn't free. Therefore, allowing people to dump as much CO2 in the air for free means you're distorting the real costs of energy consumption in favor of polluting, something anyone who looks to markets to fix problems should see an opportunity to improve here.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
(no subject)
Date: 12/3/12 09:22 (UTC)Of course, in US politics, you've got to choose a side. Environmentalism became anti-business/anti-conservative and conservatism became anti-environment/pro-business. Al Gore really cemented things, making environmentalism a second tier issue for the Democrats and a punching bag for Republicans.
Really, it's rather silly, like much of American politics. The cost to society of putting CO2 in the air may be debatable, but it certainly isn't free. Therefore, allowing people to dump as much CO2 in the air for free means you're distorting the real costs of energy consumption in favor of polluting, something anyone who looks to markets to fix problems should see an opportunity to improve here.