# Can someone explain to me why conservatives are against renewable energy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686 "2011-03-14T18:52:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/41 "2011-03-14T23:47:20Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > They don’t actually. > > [http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php](http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php) > > Of the top 100 donors to either party, you could maybe say 2-3 of them are linked to the energy/resource sector. Those kinds of donors usually cover all their bases. They give to both Republican and Democrats. When you check the lobbies, one can see better where the efforts are going. [http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2010&indexType=i](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2010&indexType=i) > [@](#): > > Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $240,325,934 > Electric Utilities $191,304,085 > Business Associations $170,241,675 > Insurance $156,388,740 > Oil & Gas $146,419,549 After the Pharma/health, the lobbies that spend the most do have a beef against having to follow regulations that the science recommends we should be doing regarding the control of CO2 emissions. Just look at what the Republicans did with the EPA. [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/08/the-tea-party-congress-a-science-free-zone/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/08/the-tea-party-congress-a-science-free-zone/) > [@](#): > > Michigan’s Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has recently introduced a bill that would, again, by fiat, with no scientific study whatever, overturn the EPAs finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to public health. > > For nearly a decade the republican dominated congress was untethered to any economic reality, and we see the results. Now they seek to slip the surly bonds of objective scientific fact, as well. > > It’s so simple. Just pass a law. Command the seas to stop rising. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/42 "2011-03-14T23:52:32Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Short version of thread: a few people exaplin exactly why, and exactly reasonably, what is offensive and ignorant about the OP, and what we might like to see instead. We then follow up with numerous left-wingers denouncing us while offering no sensiuble alternatives except to hammer away without actually correcting the flaw in their thinking. :smack: This has been happening a good bit it seems recently and I’m trying to be fair in assessing my feeling that it isn’t so prevalent the other way around – do we see a lot of conservative threads along the lines of “Liberals say they don’t like X because Y, but what’s the real reason for it?” Maybe I’m missing it. When someone tells me they are pro-abortion-rights, I assume it’s because they place high values on individual options and freedom for people/women to have a wide range of sexual and lifestyle options. I may prioritize or value those “goods” differently, but I would never have the kneejerk impulse to say “well **those** self-evidently could never be things any rational person would think important, what’s the hidden agenda?” It’s not an uncommon form of illiberal liberalism, I know – people in flyover country have never exhibited to me the gobsmacked disbelief that coastal liberals believed or practiced (as a factual matter), and thought themselves right to do so, the things that were common/dear to those coastal liberals, as vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Crawlspace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Crawlspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crawlspace)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/43 "2011-03-14T23:55:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Conservatives are not against new forms of energy. We are against government subsidies of new forms of energies. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t oil companies currently receive huge amounts in government subsidies. > [@puddleglum](#): > > Government subsidies waste taxpayer money and distort the price mechanism that the market needs to efficiently allocate resources. The price mechanism is already distorted. None of the negative externalities of oil based energy are accounted for in the price of the product and as such it is (in my opinion) vastly under priced. Subsidizing renewable clean energy would correct this imbalance and, you know, prevent the earth from turning into a giant ball of fire :D. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/44 "2011-03-14T23:56:16Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Short version of thread: a few people exaplin exactly why, and exactly reasonably, what is offensive and ignorant about the OP, and what we might like to see instead. We then follow up with numerous left-wingers denouncing us while offering no sensiuble alternatives except to hammer away without actually correcting the flaw in their thinking. :smack: History is still not your best subject I see. The basics of global warming were more formally established in the 50’s with scientists like Plass that actually looked first to improve the then new heat seeking missiles to allow the Eisenhower administration to kill Commies. So I like Ike :), now if you still want to make the point that AGW is still a left wing invention just go ahead and demonstrate more ignorance. Alternatives have been mentioned before, and they do not include the destruction of civilization. The problem now is that the current Republican leadership is certain that there are none or not needed. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2011, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/45 "2011-03-14T23:58:32Z")
As **RickG** intimated, doing a cost-benefit analysis is worthless if all the costs and all the benefits, present and future, aren’t properly taken into account. Things like technical know-how, required equipment, labor costs, efficiency percentages are rather easily quantifiable in the here-and-now, but other things like the cost, 30 years into the future, of a cubic meter of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere now are much less easy to estimate (but they can be if you do your homework and are not biased by ideology). The “traditional” modus operandi of passing those fuzzy yet undeniably real future costs onto future generations (i.e. completely ignoring them now) absolutely needs to be taken into account by a rational energy policy. If that is done, renewables start to look much better, and subsidies might be a way of recognizing and rewarding that (along with jump starting said future market). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/46 "2011-03-15T01:17:17Z")
Most conservatives don’t think AGW is happening, or at least they don’t accept the “A” part of it even if they do accept the “GW” part of it. So right there, you’re losing a big part of the equation. We all grew up in a fossil fuel based economy, and most of us don’t have any real understanding of the way that economy is subsidized by the government. Mainly that’s going to be oil (we have all the coal we need, I think), and I suspect the subsidy is largely in what it costs us militarily to make sure the ME doesn’t implode or explode. But conservatives like a strong military, so I don’t think this is a big deal for them. But on a purely economic basis, I don’t think conservatives have any issue with renewable energy, per se. I mean, look at GW Bush. He’s as conservative as they come and certainly has his share ties to the oil industry, but he’s got one of the greenest homes around. And there is a small, but hopefully growing, contingent of conservatives who see (as was mentioned above) energy independence as a national security issue. Of course, let’s not forget all the rare earth metals needed for car batteries that come from… China! Let’s just hope that algae thing pans out. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/47 "2011-03-15T01:28:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > […]what you are ignoring is that profitability is a secondary concern. What matters is having the energy at all, and not wrecking the planet in the process of getting it. If that means taking a net financial loss, so be it; that’s the sort of thing government subsidies are for. If I may, for a moment, play the devil’s advocate righty as well as you play the analogous lefty, I’d say that there’s a lot more agreement among those who know on what might happen when you do _x_ with the market than what might happen when you do _y_ with the planet. I.e., conservatives are a lot more at home with economy than with ecology, and would prefer decisions involving both to favor the former. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/48 "2011-03-15T01:32:19Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > If I may, for a moment, play the devil’s advocate righty as well as you play the analogous lefty: money is real, the planet isn’t. “Such a pity; at any moment then you will surely sink through the unreal planetary surface and be flung to a suffocating death in the vacuum of space.” With apologies to Haviland Tuf ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/49 "2011-03-15T01:36:33Z")
See, I _knew_ there was a reason I edited that out. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/50 "2011-03-15T01:41:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Of course, let’s not forget all the rare earth metals needed for car batteries that come from… China! Fortunately, this probably won’t last for long. According to [this Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element), while China currently produces 97% of the world’s rare earths, they actually only have 37% of the reserves. Mines in a number of other countries (including the US) will start producing (again, in some cases) very soon. The price mechanism at work. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/51 "2011-03-15T01:44:59Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Find some that doesn’t require a huge subsidy of federal money first. Both coal and oil receive gigantic amounts of government subsidies, tax breaks, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/52 "2011-03-15T01:57:18Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Both coal and oil receive gigantic amounts of government subsidies, tax breaks, etc. And they are aren’t required to take care of most of the damage they do, and tend to get breaks in things like safety regulations; unlike, say, nuclear. Let’s see how cheap oil and coal are if it’s decided that all the wastes produced by them need to be entombed beneath the Earth for essentially forever. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/53 "2011-03-15T02:02:44Z")
That’s because the damage they do is in fact pretty inconsequential, in the overall scheme of things. Blown way out of proportion. Tempest in a tea pot. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/54 "2011-03-15T02:06:25Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > That’s because the damage they do is in fact pretty inconsequential, in the overall scheme of things. Blown way out of proportion. Tempest in a tea pot. Melting glaciers in an ocean, not a tempest in a tea pot. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/55 "2011-03-15T02:06:47Z")
Turd in a punch bowl. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/56 "2011-03-15T02:07:41Z")
[QUOTE=RickG] Fortunately, this probably won’t last for long. According to this Wikipedia article, while China currently produces 97% of the world’s rare earths, they actually only have 37% of the reserves. Mines in a number of other countries (including the US) will start producing (again, in some cases) very soon. The price mechanism at work. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I was reading an article (I think it was on PopScience though I can’t remember now) talking about a guy looking to open a plant here in the US that will start off just processing the tailings from an old iron mine (IIRC). After that he plans to start up the mine again because it’s got quite a high concentration of REMs. The downside is there is some type of radioactive material in the mix, but he’s hopeful that he can get a twofer out of it…if he can get power plants built using the radioactive materials it would really put the company in the black. I have no idea how feasible his plan actually is (it was a PopSci article after all so grain of salt), but it underscored the fact that REMs aren’t actually all that rare…and that the US actually has quite a bit. Right now the environmental impact is too high to make it worthwhile, but we DO have quite a bit if it comes down to the crunch. -XT ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/57 "2011-03-15T02:49:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > History is still not your best subject I see. Unlike most liberals, I actually study history, not emrely pretend it supports whatever political positions I happen to hold. > [@](#): > > The basics of global warming were more formally established in the 50’s with scientists like Plass that actually looked first to improve the then new heat seeking missiles to allow the Eisenhower administration to kill Commies. So I like Ike :), now if you still want to make the point that AGW is still a left wing invention just go ahead and demonstrate more ignorance. More self-serving pablum which is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of actually getting energy. > [@](#): > > Alternatives have been mentioned before, and they do not include the destruction of civilization. The problem now is that the current Republican leadership is certain that there are none or not needed. Wait - which party has pushed several times (and been shot down time and time again) for nuclear, a power source which is known to be scalable to our energy needs, far cleaner and probably better overall than either solar or wind (both of which are silly toys for the rich)? Y’know, I don’t really care what you do or support or want. You either have a practical engineering solution, or you can fiddle around with minor sidelines. Whether you persuade yourself that pie-in-the-sky projects work or not, go ahead. But don’t pretend that this is about the environment, because there are far better ways. We know what some of these ways are and are developing the more. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/58 "2011-03-15T03:16:39Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Unlike most liberals, I actually study history, not emrely pretend it supports whatever political positions I happen to hold. Sorry, we found in the past that you need to take remedial courses. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > More self-serving pablum which is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of actually getting energy. It has to be taken into account, when the people in power just make laws doing the equivalent of telling the sea to stop, one has to notice were the problem is. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Wait - which party has pushed several times (and been shot down time and time again) for nuclear, a power source which is known to be scalable to our energy needs, far cleaner and probably better overall than either solar or wind (both of which are silly toys for the rich)? As I mentioned before I’m not one of those liberals or democrats, I support Nuclear energy. And Obama is in favor of it. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Y’know, I don’t really care what you do or support or want. You either have a practical engineering solution, or you can fiddle around with minor sidelines. Whether you persuade yourself that pie-in-the-sky projects work or not, go ahead. But don’t pretend that this is about the environment, because there are far better ways. We know what some of these ways are and are developing the more. It is about the environment, and preserving free enterprise for the future. The reality is that by postponing any efforts to control the use of fossil fuels what we are doing is just setting a future where coming governments will react to the more serious effects with desperation instead of calm planning. I know enough history to know that we are bound to get less freedom when acting in desperation. [http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html) > [@](#): > > My fellow cognitive scientist Professor Budescu, from the University of Illinois, recently showed that people’s perception of uncertainty deviates from that intended by the IPCC; in particular, most people underestimate the certainty and confidence that the IPCC assigned to “likely” and “very likely” events. Thus, events that are 90 per cent or more certain to occur - such as the increased frequency of extreme weather events - people perceive as being only 75 per cent probable, simply because the popular understanding of phrases such as “very likely” is more conservative than intended. > > Thus, far from being alarmist, the carefully chosen phraseology of the IPCC fails to communicate the urgency of the situation. > > The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected. > > This, then, is the crux of the matter that is too often overlooked or ignored: Uncertainty cuts both ways. Uncertainty means things could be worse, or indeed far worse, than the generally conservative assessment of the state of the climate provided by the IPCC and other bodies, such as the recent document published by the UK’s Royal Society. > > Uncertainty doesn’t mean we needn’t worry - because uncertainty also means that things could be worse than anticipated. > > Anyone who argues that we need not act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you come along for a ride into a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might hurt only a little. > > Are you feeling lucky? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/59 "2011-03-15T09:16:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Many of them are either in the petrochemical industry or associate with those people. Many of them oppose it simply because the Left supports it, I’m sure. And many of them are religious fanatics, who either think that there’s need to worry about using up natural resources because Jesus is coming back any time now; or they are actively hoping for an apocalypse because they think that’s when Jesus will come back, so they want massive climate change and a collapse of civilization due to energy running out. Based on my experience of the Religious Right, it’s all of these\* except the first sentence.\* Economic self-interest has nothing to do with right-wing thinking, despite the attempts of those of us outside it to try to find a rational basis for their positions. Right wing thought on the environment is steeped in recklessness and irrationality, & when you try to talk sense about it, you get shut out. The standard excuse is that **they want to burn up the earth just to piss the liberals off.** Seriously, a rightie on environmental issues is _prima facie_ a madman on the level of a man who thinks he is a biscuit. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2011, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686/60 "2011-03-15T09:24:31Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > And apparently **none** of them, not one, thinks it’s not a great investment on a cost-benefit, green eyeshade basis. Oh, as a conservationist, I know that renewable energy isn’t as easy as it looks. Rechargeable batteries to store solar power require rare earths, & that can become the new scarcity. But the rightie habit of insisting on **not** conserving fossil fuels **nor** developing replacements & just hoping that alternatives will magically appear when we’re desperate enough is hardly smart, & it’s shored up by a base of dirt-ignorant raving loons. That said, the Democratic base is dirt-ignorant too, it just feels to me like the GOP base is further round the bend. That may just be my extensive experience with religious voters in the central US, or even that the lead pollution in my old mining town has made most people here dumber than average somehow. I may be working from a flawed sample. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-someone-explain-to-me-why-conservatives-are-against-renewable-energy/574686.md?page=4)