The Daily Need

If you’re a Republican and you believe in climate change, who do you vote for?

By

January 9, 2012

It’s not easy being green — and a Republican.

There was a time when it seemed like the GOP might be warming to the conclusion that scientists agree on nearly universally: That the planet is getting hotter, and that human activity is almost certainly responsible. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, filmed an ad with Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calling for action on greenhouse gas emissions. Mitt Romney, the GOP front-runner, indicated that he believed global warming was real, and that carbon emissions were the culprit.

Now that they’re seeking the Republican nomination for president, however, they seem to have gotten cold feet. Both Romney and Gingrich have hedged their past statements on climate change. Even Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who has cast himself as the adult in the room, seems to have backed away from his infamous tweet declaring, “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” Later, when asked whether global warming was man-made, Huntsman told a crowd of Republican voters, ”I don’t know, I’m not a scientist.”

So, what’s a green Republican to do? James West of the The Climate Desk, a collaboration with Mother Jones and several other media outlets, traveled to New Hampshire, the site of this week’s crucial first primary, to find that rare breed of conservative voter who also happens to believe the science behind man-made climate change. “What my concern is, is that moderate, reasonable, enlightened, rational Republicans are not willing to step forward to ride a countervailing influence, if you will, within the Republican Party,” Farrell Seiler, founder of the New Hampshire Republicans for Climate, told West. “They don’t listen to us.”

Last modified: January 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
SUGGESTED STORIES
  • Differing views on fracking's impact
    Studies conducted on the counties above the Marcellus and Barnett Shale for example — where extensive drilling has already taken place — present mixed economic results.
  • thumb
    Too much solar energy?
    The proliferation of privately owned solar has large power companies in Germany worried.
  • thumb
    Nominee has industry ties
    Energy secretary nominee had deep connections to industry, including as a paid adviser to BP until 2011.

Comments

  • http://blog.megacity.org/ Derek Balling

    You vote for Ron Paul, who has quite a sane perspective on global warming, and who – like all media outlets – you’ve completely ignored.

    http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

  • Skyeflyer44

    I am an independent voter in New Hampshire. I do not believe we will do anything to prevent Climate Change until it happens. Really happens as in our maple trees dying in significant numbers, a lot fewer snow days for skiing or hundreds of powerful tornadoes ripping through the south, etc. As we have seen in recent times there is very little gained (politically) from avoiding a problem. The credit comes from solving it. Obama’s and Bush’s actions helped reduce the impact of the 2008 financial meltdown. While their responses were not perfect they helped and they were both heavily criticized. Poor communication on the part of the scientific community has also played a role in not making this issue more important. So here it comes.

  • Klagya

    When the Republicans ship your jobs to Mexico and China!
    No more Smoke in the US!
    But, will that help the Environment?

  • Powe7801

    The U.S. has to take a leadership role here on climate change. China and India certainly won’t do it and will feel no pressure at all if they see the U.S. doing nothing. Actions speak louder than words.

  • Nateh2004

    A carbon tax is the only reason why any of the Republican candidates would actual perpetuate an idea,that was one of the main reasons it was. Brought To light by al gore, who had interest in generating revenue for his own personal gain.

    I do agree with the OP in that unless we can put regulations on emissions on larger populated countries like china( highly unlikely since who owe are large sum of dept to china).it would be a fruitless effort.

  • Anonymous

    Germany is on track to reduce emissions by 40 per cent, and it has been a boost to their economy. Cancelled nukes , too.  They didn’t wait for China or the U.S., so Kudos!!!

  • http://twitter.com/Kiljoy616 Alexander Cardosa

    Time for real Republicans to take back their party from the waco religious right and political denialism backers. Republicanism was about physical conservatism not religion which is should never be a reason to vote for a party or denial of science. 

  • http://twitter.com/Kiljoy616 Alexander Cardosa

    Depends on how they do it, in the end its Government putting pressure and sealing all those loopholes with taxes that will stop the exportation of jobs. Tax evasion legally is an art to it self. 

  • http://twitter.com/Kiljoy616 Alexander Cardosa

    Depends on how they do it, in the end its Government putting pressure and sealing all those loopholes with taxes that will stop the exportation of jobs. Tax evasion legally is an art to it self. 

  • Anonymous

    It is not ‘believe in’ climate change it is ‘understand’, ‘acknowledge’, ‘accept’.  When you let your brain recognize facts this is not called ‘belief’, any more than I ‘believe’ there is a country called the USA.

  • lea

    I was raised a republican.  I was a republican from 1940 when I was born to 1967.  My husband and I lived in Madison, Wi, and therefore surrounded by progressives.  My husband and I argued the GOP crap until we moved to a small Right Wing community and there we learned that we had been wrong and within 6 months we were left wing socialists.  I have worked daily since then with the Dems.  The facts won me over.