In my latest reading of James Carville and Paul Begala's Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future
(copyright 2006), I read the chapter on the environment, and I started
the chapter on the media (i.e., how the media does not really manifest a
left-wing bias). My post today will be about the environment, whereas
my post tomorrow will be about the media.
What did I like about
the chapter on the environment? A number of things. I liked Carville
and Begala's point that Democrats should concentrate on climate change
rather than drilling in ANWR (which many people don't visit anyway),
that they should promote good environmental stewardship as a religious
value, that they should highlight how environmental damage threatens
people's health, that they should seek the support of hunters and
fishermen by talking about how environmental damage leads to fewer
places where people can hunt and fish, and that they should discuss how
higher CAFE standards could lead to the production of more
fuel-efficient cars and thus more jobs. I also appreciated that Begala
and Carville mentioned people who were being part of the solution rather
than part of the problem. They refer favorably to the advancements
that Texas has made in terms of alternative fuels (and I talk about
Texas Governor Rick Perry's discussion of Texas' environmental and clean
energy record in my post here), as well as General Electric's profits from renewable energy, "water purification and cleaner transportation" (page 182).
After
talking about GE, Carville and Begala criticize how a number of
Democrats approach environmental issues: "We'll admit it: There are
times when Democrats can be preachy and prissy and sanctimonious and
scornful when talking about energy and the environment. We tend to
sneer at people who drive SUVs and at companies that create jobs but
also contribute to global warming. Worse, some Democratic
environmentalists tend to be almost self-loathing about America's energy
consumption. Instead, we should celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit
of America; we should embrace the profit motive that is driving more and
more corporate leaders to the Green/Green Solution."
I
appreciate Carville and Begala's support for an environmentalism that is
consistent with jobs, religion, and the desires of hunters and
fishermen. I remember a professor saying that, in some regions of the
country, the National Rifle Association is a strong proponent of
responsible environmental policies. Why should environmentalists
position themselves as extremists, when they can form alliances with a
wide range of people, even conservatives?
What
did I not like about the chapter on the environment? I did not feel
that Carville and Begala were sensitive to the deleterious effects that
some of their proposals could have. For example, they support
cap-and-trade and the windfall profits tax. But could not those lead to
higher energy prices, as companies pass on the cost of buying carbon
credits or paying the windfall profits tax to consumers? Carville and
Begala should have addressed that point. It would be nice, though, if a
windfall profits tax could work out, for I like the story about how
Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska brought in higher revenues and gave
Alaskans a check through taxes on oil profits (but see here for another take on that).