Results 21 to 22 of 22
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
-
05-30-2017, 11:31 AM #21When Did Republicans Start Hating the Environment?RTImages/Shutterstock
Roughly 1991, according to a new study.
CHRIS MOONEYAUG. 12, 2014 6:00 AM
It's one of those facts that sweeps you back into an alien, almost unrecognizable era. On July 9, 1970, Republican President Richard Nixon announced to Congress his plans to create the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. By the end of that year, both agencies were a reality. Nowadays, among their other tasks, they either monitor or seek to mitigate the problem of global warming—actions that make today's Republicans, Nixon's heirs, completely livid.
To give one example of how anti-environment the right today is, just consider thisThinkProgress analysis, finding that "over 58 percent" of congressional Republicans refuse to accept the science of climate change.
So what happened to the GOP, from the time of Nixon to the present, to turn an environmental leader into an environmental retrograde? According to a new studyin the journal Social Science Research, the key change actually began around the year 1991—when the Soviet Union fell. "The conservative movement replaced the 'Red Scare' with a new 'Green Scare' and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time," argues sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University and two colleagues.
So is that causal explanation right? Before getting to that question, let's examine the study itself.
For starters, it is pretty much undebatable that Americans today are polarized over environmental issues. In a figure in their paper, McCright and his colleagues visualize this polarization by charting the average League of Conservation Voters environmental scores for congressional Democrats and Republicans from 1970 through 2013:
Polarization in environmental voting in Congress McCright et al., "Political Polarization on Support for Government Spending on Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012," Social Science Research, 2014This figure suggests that the key left-right break point on the environment occurred sometime in the early 1990s. So does the analysis at the center of the new paper: a look at how Americans belonging to different political parties have answered the same General Social Survey question about the environment going back to the year 1974. In that year and at regular intervals ever since, the GSS has asked the following question:
One of the items then listed is "the environment" or "improving and protecting the environment." Here's how many Americans responded to that question over time by saying that we're spending "too little" on environmental protection, separated by political party membership:
We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or inexpensively. I'm going to name some of these problems, and for each one I'd like you to tell me whether you think we're spending too much money on it, too little money, or about the right amount.
Polarization of Americans' views of environmental spending McCright et al., "Political Polarization on Support for Environmental Protection in the USA, 1974-2012," Social Science Research, 2014Once again, the key break appears to happen in the early 1990s. (Note: You might think that this just reflects a distaste on the right for government spending in general. But using more GSS data, the authors looked at support for government spending on other issues—like space exploration and foreign aid—and controlled for this general support for spending in their analysis.)
So what happened in the early 1990s? Well, for one thing, Bill Clinton was elected, flanked by a vice president, Al Gore, who had just published a book called Earth in the Balance. That made environmental issues salient in a very political way.
And then, there was the once super-intense fight over habitat protections for thenorthern spotted owl. Remember that?
The authors, for their part, cite the "rise of global environmentalism with the 1992 Rio Earth Summit," which, they say, "generated a heightened level of anti-environmental activity by the conservative movement and Congressional Republicans." Here, they rely to a significant part on another 2008 paper, noting how the conservative think tank movement mobilized to oppose environmental protections in the early 1990s. The upshot is that as environmentalism became an increasingly global movement, many conservatives tarred it with the label "socialism." "Rio reflected a heightened sense of urgency for environmental protection that was seen as a threat by conservative elites, stimulating them to replace anti-communism with anti-environmentalism," that study observed.
But this is not the only possible explanation for the trends noted above. There has been a great deal of research on why American politics have become so polarized (on all issues, not just environmental ones), and theories to explain the trend abound. For instance, one major factor is clearly "party sorting"—the idea that conservatives have moved more into the GOP over time, even as liberals have, at least to some extent, coalesced in the Democratic Party. So, the Republicans answering a General Social Survey question about the environment in 1996 or so simply were not the same bunch of people who were answering it in 1974.
One intriguing related hypothesis posits that the right wing has become more unwilling to compromise in general because it has become more psychologically authoritarian—closed-minded, prone to black-and-white thinking. That's not a pattern that would uniquely affect environmental issues, though. If anything, it would be felt most strongly on the topics that authoritarians most care about: crime, national defense, religion in public life, and matters of that ilk.
Whatever the cause, the consequence is clear: We can't get anything done in a bipartisan way on the environment any longer. "The situation," conclude the authors, "does not bode well for our nation's ability to deal effectively with the wide range of environmental problems—from local toxics to global climate change—we currently face."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/republicans-environment-hate-polarization
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**
Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn
-
05-30-2017, 12:40 PM #22
This is "left-wing" crap. Climate Change and Global Warming are consequences of many many things. They are also the song and dance for increased government funding, storm water fees, environmental firms and legislated markets that make a lot of people a lot of money at someone else's expense.
The difference today between DemoQuacks and most Republicans is DemoQuacks want One World Governance, they want Open Borders, they want jobs from taxes instead of jobs from production/service, they want solar panels and farms when you can't have both, they want birds and wind turbines when you can't have both, they want cheap energy and limited sources when you can't have both. Why do they not know that? Because the "voices" of the DemoQuacks are people who don't know how to actually do anything except run their mouths as "social justice warriors".Last edited by Judy; 05-30-2017 at 12:44 PM.
A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy
Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn
Similar Threads
-
Europe’s Future — Merkel or Le Pen?
By patbrunz in forum General DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: 12-23-2016, 11:31 AM -
Fading Clout: Most Germans 'No Longer Support' Merkel's Refugee Policy
By European Knight in forum illegal immigration News Stories & ReportsReplies: 4Last Post: 05-10-2016, 05:56 PM -
Congressman: Our Enemies No Longer Fear Us, Our Allies No Longer Trust Us
By AirborneSapper7 in forum General DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: 02-04-2014, 09:38 PM -
Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam - Do Americans Care?
By AirborneSapper7 in forum General DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: 05-21-2013, 04:44 AM -
U.S. may rely on aging U-2 spy planes longer than expected
By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and IssuesReplies: 0Last Post: 01-28-2012, 12:34 AM
Sanctuary City of Chicago Arrests Over 1K Illegals from...
05-01-2024, 08:20 PM in illegal immigration News Stories & Reports