Against the Odds, Young Conservatives Buck the GOP on Energy and Climate Change

Alas, the young are often misguided:

A group of young Republicans is out to persuade their party to pursue a path toward a future free of fossil fuels.

A group of young Republicans has set out to achieve what some might say is an impossible goal: Over the next two years they’ll try to persuade their party to craft and support legislation that would reform the nation’s energy system and set a path toward a future free of fossil fuels.

“We want to show conservatives that this truly is an issue that affects us, affects our families and our businesses,” said Michele Combs, a 45-year-old legislative consultant who founded the group. (Paragraph includes correction, 09/05/2012).

The organization—Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, or YCER—joins a small but growing number of like-minded groups and individuals who hope to revive a voice that has been lost in the Republican Party, one that’s focused on curbing, not expanding, fossil fuel production. (Paragraph includes correction, 09/05/2012).

At last week’s GOP convention in Florida, the Evangelical Environment Network teamed with the Florida Wildlife Federation to buy billboard ads touting prominent Republicans’ concerns about climate change, including Ohio Governor John Kasich. In July, a group called the Energy and Enterprise Initiative was formed to bring Republicans and libertarians together to find free-market solutions to the climate change problem. Former Rep. Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican, is heading the initiative out of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication.

InsideClimate News

About these ads

9 responses to “Against the Odds, Young Conservatives Buck the GOP on Energy and Climate Change

  1. Self-declared conservatives; I am curious what they stand for concerning other conservative issues.

  2. These folks can be forgiven because: 1) they are young; and 2) they are victims of an educational system which has been corrupted by AGW advocacy. Once they learn the facts and grow up, they’ll be ok.

  3. Look quick, this may be the only chance you get to see this YCER group (if it’s not a literal plant by the left).

  4. To my mind, conservatives should be advocating the successful production of low-cost and abundant energy. If that means “fossil fuel”, coal and oil, well and good. If that means methane and related fuel gases, well and good. If solar, biomass and other supposedly green sources have a role, let them take their place. The measure of successful energy production is lots of it and the price is low. Reducing actual pollution (soot, particulates, toxic elements) certainly has its place also.
    It’s just as silly to proclaim fossil fuels are our only energy hope as it is to proclaim that they are the devil’s fuels.

  5. If the measure of successful energy production is “lots of it and the price is low”, so-called renewables fail on both accounts, unless you want a future with lights on only when the wind blows and/or the sun shines. Also, you must be willing to destroy all those scenic vistas the environmentalists wanted to save from oil drilling (It was never about the scenery, was it?). Right now, we have only oil, gas and nuclear, along with some hydro and geothermal. The first three are what keep electricity flowing. It does make sense to consider all options that actually do work, but not ideas that eat up land, produce virtually no energy and cost a fortune. As the Editor pointed out, right now oil and gas are the only viable ways to make sufficient energy to power the planet.

  6. Howdy Editor
    Nor do I, especially not transport fuels which must themselves be easily carried (a tank of gas has so much more range than a battery).
    It depends a bit on how you classify methane, though, since we can generate methane. It’s only sort-of a fossil fuel.
    I’m a big fan of energy and that means fossil fuels and burning stuff at this point. If there are genuinely economical alternatives, though, I’d love to see it work out.

  7. I smell another ‘fake but accurate’ coming on here. “Conservatives” are all for low cost and highly available energy that doesn’t cause more damage than benefit. So-called clean coal, natgas, and nukes are all good candidates for that.

    “renewables” are a fad at this point in time. They will work under certain very narrow conditons, but otherwise are worse in TCP (total cost of pollution) and WAY higher in delivered cost per erg of usage/benefit. Therefore ‘conservatives’ would not be pimping for them.

  8. Howdy stpaulchuck
    I’ve made the same point many times: the “feel good” energy technologies are worse for the environment (and the poor, and women, and minorities) than conventional energy technologies.
    My point is that it’s effective energy that matters rather than whether it’s from renewable methane, fossil-formation methane, tar sands, or anything that actually works.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s