This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land: The False Choice Between the Economy & The Environment (Part II)
When it comes to climate change, we can only protect the future by finally rejecting the past
Since starting this newsletter, writing about politics while staying above the daily firehose of news and events has been challenging. Every day, there are important events that I weigh in on in group text threads with my liberal and conservative friends. For this project, however, I want to stay focused on problems from a higher altitude because, while it’s seductive to want to weigh in on every fight and every slight as they come in wave after wave on social media, there are already plenty of people slugging it out in the trenches on social media. Our collective problems are much more significant and interconnected than the soundbites on the news and clickbait headlines online. I hope that by approaching these issues in a more holistic, less combative way, we can better come together as citizens instead of tribes to tackle them. In my last post, I wrote about my epiphany on the road living with mountain men and women in Montana and how that experience taught me to be suspicious of the left/right political divide on environmental protection that we take for granted.
As a country, America is trapped in a cultural war left over from the 1960s, and it’s quite literally going to kill us. As long as “environment protection” and believing we must take action to mitigate “climate change” are synonymous with being a “lefty,” voters who don’t identify as such will continue to vote against our collective long-term best interest, even if they essentially agree with the outcomes many of these policies intend to achieve.
Our inability to act will mean the difference between our ability to live, thrive, and evolve on this planet versus humanity being forced to contract, mass migrate from the equator, and claw out our daily existence just to survive. Do you worry that immigration is too high now? Imagine what it would be like if the equator became unlivable.
Cultural divisions designed to protect politicians are the seeds of our environmental destruction and paralysis to this day.
Most people understand that, when it comes to the environment, some compromise and risk are necessary to feed, clothe, house, and sustain human life at the scale humans exist on this planet. There will be some environmental degradation or even destruction to power our homes, drive our cars, grow, harvest, and deliver our crops, and support the manufacturing processes that power our modern lives; this just is and has been for as long as humans have been on earth.
We can accept this as accurate without turning it into a zero-sum game. Humans can also thrive alongside the environment and do. What is not sustainable, however, is to continue our current quality of life using the same systems, policies, technology, and market incentives that we’ve employed since the start of the Industrial Revolution more than two hundred years ago. We must start transitioning because, contrary to what big business interests and their puppets, I mean pundits, want you to believe, there will not be any climate havenson the ever-warming planet on which we depend.
Now, some argue that capitalism is fundamentally at odds with the environment, as it is destructive and exploitative by design. Without question, history has born this out from the earliest days of modern capitalism. On the other hand, despite capitalism’s abysmal record on the environment, slavery, and exploitative destruction, we cannot ignore its role in lifting the human species out of an existence that was “nasty, brutish, and short.” While we cannot know if another economic system would have had the same impact on our quality and quantity of life, we do live better and longer due to advances that may not exist were it not for capitalism’s often brutal rules. More recently, there have been institutional and cultural efforts to mitigate at least some of those destructive tendencies. Some argue that this is merely a shell game or, at best, a stall and survival tactic. One that dresses up a few sustainability “show ponies” while capitalism’s real players continue to move its destruction to parts of the world that are least equipped to deal with it.
With all that said, this blog isn’t the place to spin our wheels arguing about various economic structures; it’s about politics, and for far too long, because of the way we’ve defined environmental champions, politicians have used the environment as a wedge to pit Americans against each other so they will not collectively demand change. I want to explore ways that we can change that.
To understand how to move forward, we must know how we got here.
Americans have been fighting to protect their local environments since the late 1800s. However, the most relevant event to our modern cultural paralysis is rooted in the early 1960s, when Rachel Carson first published her findings on the danger of pesticides in The New Yorker magazine. Soon after, she released her book Silent Spring. Her conclusions caused what the boomers used to call “a sensation.”
In Silent Spring, Carson made a damning case against the wholesale use of DDT in our environment and its deadly impacts on bugs, which in turn moved up the ecological food chain with the potential to devastate our agricultural system. I’m paraphrasing here for brevity, but Silent Spring was a watershed moment in American life and politics. It’s been credited with creating the modern environmental movement and significant legislation. Ultimately, Carson’s work led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Nixon and brought America back from the brink of ecological suicide. (Yes, that’s right. Nixon created the EPA, which is more proof that environmental protection transcends political ideology and can again.)
Carson and her claims faced immediate pushback from the chemical industry, which launched a sustained, coordinated slander campaign against her. Americans across the political aisle were alarmed by Carson’s arguments that chemical pesticides were not only killing bugs, which was impacting our entire food chain but potentially harming children directly. The chemical industry took a defensive stance, and that defense would prove to be an effective template that we remain shackled by today. The industry didn’t just attack Carson’s science but her character and credentials, going so far as to accuse her of being a communist “in league with “sinister parties” in the Soviet Union.”
Though the “Red Scare” era of Joseph McCarthy technically “ended” when the Senate censured McCarthy in 1954. Labeling opponents as communists or socialists was an extremely effective tactic for decades, as many Americans remained suspect of all things “communist” until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. (Some argue that conservative politicians, desperate for a fear-based wedge to hold on to power, swapped the “red scare” for a “green scare” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.)
Silent Spring may have been the seed of our current cultural war over the environment, but it was the subsequent two decades that cemented the false narrative that environmental protection is somehow a “lefty” value. The rise of the counterculture generation of the 1960s and 70s created a cultural schism between “liberals” and “conservatives” over the environment.
Ronald Reagan and other savvy politicians weaponized this rift when they exploited political identity as a tool for power. Since then, politicians, their proxy organizations, think tanks and mainstream media have reinforced, enhanced, and manipulated this idea that Republicans trusted business and markets to “do the right thing” while painting anyone who stood in the way of short-term economic interests as anti-American.
To protect the environment, a focus on winning elections is not enough
While many people say they want to protect the environment and better care for the health of the oceans, megafauna, and forests, we are much more vocal about what’s good for our economy and immediate future. This is frustrating, but we have evolved to focus on the next meal vs. the next century. Further, the cultural West is the product of centuries of capitalism and a growth-at-all-costs mindset. This deeply embedded cultural mindset makes it easy for politicians and business interests to position the economy over the environment as a zero-sum game.
Candidates must know this because, if you are following the 2024 Presidential election, you might have noticed that neither campaign spends much time discussing the environment. This might seem odd, seeing how, in every state, people are experiencing climate change in deadly ways. Weather patterns, fed by warming weather, create wild, catastrophic events that cost lives and the vast destruction of property. The choice to only respond and rebuild after these events is far more expensive and will ultimately destroy our local, state, and national economies.
But even if Democrats, who most people assume are the party to champion environmental policies, win the next election at the national level, there’s no guarantee that anything will change. Without a shared cultural demand around the necessity to slow climate change, the structure of our government ensures that we’ll likely see watered-down legislation inadequate to curb the worst outcomes of an artificially warmed planet. At the same time, the very next election may sweep Republicans back into power and undo most of those even modest gains.
No, a short-term focus on winning the next election will not be enough. Any gains will remain too small and too temporary. To address human-caused climate change, we must get enough Republican voters to realize and accept that climate change is a real threat and, in turn, demand their Republican representatives treat it as such.
Relying on one party to address climate change also risks the inherent problem when one side of an ideological aisle dictates any policy: terrible legislation. We’ve all seen how badly well-meaning proposals driven by ideology can fall apart once they meet reality. Tackling climate will impact every aspect of our society, and we need everyone at the table to inform those decisions.
To succeed in slowing climate change, we need honest conversations that include conservatives, business and industry leaders, farmers, activists, and especially everyday “normie” Americans. I am confident that we can tackle this challenge together in ways that change but still ultimately grow the economy, build a sustainable energy platform, and protect our only planet.
But first, we must win over enough voters to reject the ancient cultural divisions that are no longer relevant or reflect our times. Here are some ideas on how to break from our grandparents’ shackles and come together on enough points to take real action:
Voters must reject the false choice between “the economy” and “the environment,” and politicians must help them do that:
Any politician running must speak about the environment in ways that resonate locally and talk about how we transition from an ancient industrial economy to a modern one built for the 21st century.
Protecting the economy is a valid concern, but all too often, it’s an excuse for inaction. The Biden Administration achieved a significant win with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, but that is only a tiny step to mitigating climate change. We can and must do that while easing economic hardship and anxiety among voters. This may seem obvious, but preying on economic anxiety is the most effective tool to slow, stop, and reverse any progress we make on environmental protection in the wake of each election.
We need an aggressive but integrated transition from our ancient power grid to a modern one:
Think of it like the transition to electric vehicles: many people want one, but range anxiety is enough to stop them. We need an accelerated program that invests in transitioning to a cleaner economy using the infrastructure and workforce we have in place. That means replacing the electric grid’s parts as they age out with cross-compatible systems that can drive energy from either coal or solar, wind or natural gas. This way, we aren’t “stuck” with an ancient system that will cost trillions and decades to replace.
We need a Green Rush that energizes, excites, and inspires a new generation of seekers looking for gold, only this time, it’s by nurturing inventors, entrepreneurs, investors, and scientists to boldly head into the future, knowing that America has their back. Some will fail, some will thrive, but that cultural backwind will benefit us all. The Green New Deal tried this approach in many ways, but the messengers are as crucial as the message, and this is not something that can borne of nor sold by “the Left.” This drive must come from a mix of business leaders, republicans, and other aspirational influencers and validators.
Use science to reinforce our narratives, not define them:
The fact is that most people do not care what “the scientists” or “the experts” say. Sure, some do, but the environment already has those people on its side, and my whole objective here is to reach people who are not already singing with the choir.
Use what they call “yes, and” in improv: admit that the earth’s temperature has always fluctuated while immediately putting that into the relevant context; we, or most mammals, will not be able to survive outside a narrow climate threshold that unmitigated warming will destroy.
We must speak about the climate in grounded language that connects voters to their immediate experience. The polar ice shelves may be experiencing catastrophic melt, but that message, to many voters, feels like we’re talking about another planet altogether. People who campaign on or speak about the environment must keep it local, immediate, and tie in economic impacts in the short and mid-term, not just generational crises in the long run. Sadly, we already have too many local examples that aren’t conveyed effectively.
Caring for the environment IS patriotic AND pro-life:
Instant gut poll: Most of the people driving around and enjoying our National Parks in giant RVs are conservatives. These people love this country and its boundless beauty as much as any van-life liberal you’ve ever met. It’s time we treated the environment with the same flag-waving love we show our veterans. While veterans put their lives on the line to protect our country, the ground, air, and rivers define our nation. To love something is to give your everything to protect it.
Acting to prevent the most predictable, severe impacts of climate change is how we (actually) care for our children and their children and generations to follow.
Clean, locally produced energy is authentic freedom: The military knows this, too. They have been researching and implementing sustainable energy and conservation for decades. They know you can’t be free while relying on a multi-trillion-dollar global infrastructure to get gas to your warships, jets, and jeeps. Right-wingers must understand that their giant, gassed-up pick-ups would get about 100 miles before they, too, are worthless in a time of conflict and uncertainty.
Environmental sustainability is a conservative value:
Environmentalists and politicians pushing for action on climate must stop using liberal frames.
Conservatives value self-reliance and independence; sustainable, locally sourced, clean energy is the ultimate act of self-reliance and freedom because it is much more resilient than mining and transporting fossil fuels, be they on the other side of the planet or the country.
Conservation is a conservative value. Conservatives value preservation and resist change: Throw a dart at most any country music songs over the last 80 years, and you are bound to land on one that laments the loss of wide-open ranges giving way to concrete and asphalt.
Conservatives fear environment policy because they equate it with limiting the freedom of markets and individuals to use the environment as they see fit to their benefit. This is a false choice. Conservatives living on the ground want to protect the land they hold sacred, just like everyone else does.
We must confidently define “freedom” as self-reliance that gives us cheaper, home-grown energy while remaining sustainable for our kids and their kids. We must move from a culture of “freedom for” those with money and power to one that values “freedom from” toxic air and polluted water.
A protected environment means freedom from the anxiety of an unsustainable food chain
A clean, sustainable energy system means freedom from a global infrastructure that poisons our skies and depletes our rivers
And all of it means freedom from an artificially warmed climate that drives catastrophic weather events that devastate our communities.
Conservatives do not have to go full “Al Gore” for America to slow climate change:
We must let go of this zero-sum game that for the environment to win, conservatives must lose. We must also let go of the false choice that pits the economy against the environment. These dichotomies only benefit the politicians, pundits, and media machines. Politicians use it as a wedge to stay in power, pundits use it as a platform for fame and fortune, and global media conglomerates keep us glued to our screens while we sit on our hands. These people have no interest in fixing anything because the problem is so profitable.
I could go on and on, but this post is already too long (and it’s Part II!)
The most vital thing is that more people see this left/right dichotomy on climate as the fabrication it is. It is the only way we can move past it. Until we choose to break free from living in the cultural dichotomy of the 1960s, we’ll continue to boil slowly, like frogs in the pot that is our planet, because we won’t control carbon emissions.
We must let go of that past, turn off the political pundits and leaders that reinforce it for their benefit, and come to the table to mitigate economic impact while making bold progress on our transition to a modern energy infrastructure.