Why do conservatives resist environmental concerns

Why is it associated with conservatives to deny global warming?

The politicians promoting the concept of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" have also promoted the following actions:

  • Strict restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.
  • High taxes on fossil fuels.
  • Subsidies for the use of arable land to grow fuel instead of food. (This directive is sometimes referred to as "burning food".)
  • Asset transfers from rich to poor countries.
  • State subsidies for solar energy.
  • Promotion of smaller, lighter vehicles (often from other companies or countries as larger, heavier vehicles)
  • Headache-inducing lightbulbs.
  • Houses with thicker walls.
  • Flammable exterior walls of buildings. (Even with flame retardants, the outer foam insulation is similar to napalm. It must be sealed against sources of ignition.)
  • Dark windows.
  • Rate limited shower heads.
  • Carpool lanes.
  • Many other restrictions on how ordinary people lead their daily lives.

Most conservatives are in favor of small government. They tend to reject higher taxes. They tend to ask for strong reasons (such as "it is necessary to win this war" or "it causes brain damage" or "it risks eternal damnation") before approving government interference in people's lives. They also expect these "strong reasons" to be evident either to ordinary people or in the Scriptures. You therefore have many reasons to be skeptical about "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming".

Libertarians often argue that people should be free to risk "brain damage" by using drugs - but "brain damage" undermines the libertarian argument that people tend to choose wisely or rationally. "Eternal damnation" is a religious argument - but many people sincerely believe that no pleasure "in this world" is worth "eternal damnation".

By the way, every competent historian knows "global warming" - 200 years ago the Hudson and the Thames regularly froze. They stopped doing it before people started burning large amounts of coal in the late 19th century. Most conservatives recognize a modest amount of "anthropogenic global warming". They only doubt the "catastrophic" part. Simple models suggest that a doubling of the CO 2 Concentration in the atmosphere can cause average atmospheric temperatures to rise by about one degree. More sophisticated feedback response models that use a lumped feedback parameter suggest that the same doubling can cause average atmospheric temperatures to rise less than 2 ° F. This is a modest change; Many places in the world have daily fluctuations of 30 ° F plus another 50 ° F seasonal fluctuations. 1,000 feet of elevation change is roughly equivalent to a 2-5 F ° change in temperature. According to Vostok ice cores, the end of an ice age is associated with a temperature increase of around 10 to 20 ° F.

In summary, the measures proposed by proponents of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" are "you bet your country" -type measures and measures that interfere with the daily lives of most ordinary people. Conservatives are demanding solid evidence for the "catastrophic" part before approving such action.