Authoritative Environmentalism… from Conservatives… say whaaaat?!
This piece is actually just a question posed to all of my blog readers who share my environmentalism views… Does this method work? Let’s examine it. Surprisingly from me this will be an objective article.
The other day, I was stumbling through several articles on MSNBC. I came across several different articles on NJ Governor Chris Christie’s possible bid for the White House. We all know today, that this was not to be. However, the article MSNBC showed was about a new breed of environmentalist conservatives. Chris Christie is coming from a state notorious for its industrial pollution, but one must question whether his method can actually work.
I am not by any means labeling myself as a conservative or a liberal in this article. I am merely questioning the normally liberal leaning green to now the conservative lean on environmentalism? It’s a new look, and some may feel it’s the twilight zone —but here we go: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44719797/ns/politics/t/christies-conservative-record-under-close-scrutiny/.
Repeal of RGGI?
RGGI for all of my non-environmental law people is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. It is a non-binding agreement among the Northeastern US States (with several out of state supporters merely as look-ins). Basically, in a nutshell, RGGI basically has energy companies (usually coal-fired power plants) bid on greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions into our atmosphere. Each state is given a certain amount, and energy companies then pay for their emissions. At the same time, the penalty money, or the amount to pollute the air (which is costly) will be donated to the state to invest in green technologies. However, most of the time, as in the case of NJ, the money was used to balance the budget (or in other states other non-green or clean technology programs). So, the question now posed is does RGGI have teeth? Is it a good program? There is no “Big Brother” if you will looking over state spending to insure it is used for green technology.
Gov. Christie decided recently to pull out from NJ’s role with RGGI citing that it was too costly to companies, and really didn’t do any good. In his usual terse tone, he basically said that he will enforce green goals, and the states will comply--an authoritative position for the governor to make. Gov. Christie has already spoken out in favor of offshore wind projects and solar panels.
As a NJ resident, I can say there are solar panels currently being used around the state. The question as to whether it was Gov. Christie’ idea or through RGGI is another issue.
What does Authoritative Environmentalism mean?
In a philosophical way, the term “authoritative” has negative connotations. It’s being told “this is it—follow it or have consequences.” Authoritative is a way of dictating an order. Should environmental technology be mandated? Is this the only way that we can actually achieve greenhouse gas emission goals? What penalties would be faced since we already have financial penalties? Gov. Christie has not elaborated, but one begs to question, "Will energy company CEOs face legal implications as a result of pollution?" Highly unlikely, but then, how can one be told this is the law and you must follow it?
States can legally mandate stricter environmental provisions than provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but will NJ do that? And how will this effect conservatives’ views on environmentalism if at all?
These are important questions to address, and I really hope my readers will comment --curious to see your views too!
