New Deal Lite: Beware of the ‘American Conservation Coalition’ (climate alarmism premise ruinous)

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- April 13, 2021

” … it is our moral responsibility to play a leading role in the response to the threats posed by climate change. Both inaction and unrealistic proposals are insufficient responses. The United States should prioritize actionable policy solutions … for all Americans impacted by climate change and for the betterment of future generations.”

– American Conservation Coalition

“Beware of the American Conservative Coalition…. Christopher Barnard should engage in open debate to demonstrate why the climate is in crisis and why rationing consumer-chosen energy is a workable policy.” (Bradley, below)

With an endless supply of money, the Progressive Left have been creating nonprofits to fracture and weaken the resistance to climate alarmism and forced energy transformation. Many “conservative” or “Republican” or “bipartisan” front groups are doing the incrementalism that tip-toe on the road to serfdom.

The “youth-led” American Conservation Coalition (ACC) promotes itself as anti-Green New Deal, against a carbon tax, and dissatisfied with the Paris Climate Accord. But are they against other forms of pricing emissions of the green greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2)? Would they support pulling out of the Paris accord?

More fundamentally, their “EcoRight” approach is really EcoStatism given their embrace of climate alarmism and their rejection of the do-no-harm climate policy: free-market adaptation, not government mitigation.

Here are ACC’s code words for government activism, one step at a time, all down the road to serfdom. “We” is used a lot, but government is always right there. Here are twenty disconcerting buzz phrases:

“developing innovative energy technologies,” “promoting diverse sources of energy to ensure energy independence,” “expanding public-private partnerships,” “facilitating collaboration among federal agencies and the private sector”

“recalibrate the investment of government funding,” “prioritize the advancement of affordable and exportable clean energy technologies,” “modernize its infrastructure to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” “smart grids”

“integrate low and zero-emissions technology,” “clean energy,” “reduce embodied carbon,” “targeted investment and regulatory streamlining” “store carbon,” “expand carbon sinks,” “incentivized … land management and conservation strategies,” “conservation efforts”

“engage with partner nations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions,” “be a leader and an example to the rest of the world”

“policies … global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050”

A strategy of the American Conservation Coalition is to gain entry in conservative or libertarian venues by extolling the areas of agreement–and staying quiet on climate statism.

Here is a recent example. Christopher Barnard, National Policy Director at ACC, wrote an entirely sensible piece this month for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), “Stop Greenwashing Socialism.”

Rejecting “ecosocialism,” and “perpetuated myth of more government control meaning more environmental protection” as “not only misguided, but dangerous,” Barnard would seem to reject climate planning by steps. But he doesn’t go there. This is the half-truth strategy: get the reader’s confidence by telling half of your story.

On the premise of climate alarmism, no doubt the key to ACC’s funding and mission, Barnard will use other venues to critically embrace a speculative, unsolvable global market failure connected to dense, reliable, affordable mineral energies.

In another AIER post, Barnard quite sensibly wrote:

We locked down entire economies to reduce our carbon emissions by as little as 6.4%, which is proof that economic degrowth, as some eco-activists have called for, is a ridiculous proposition…. The 2020 reduction in emissions was the result not of a strategic climate response, but of global pain and suffering.”

Beware of the American Conservative Coalition. It is hiding something very big from the classical liberal/free market community.

Christopher Barnard should be challenged to engage in open debate to demonstrate why the climate is in crisis and why rationing consumer-chosen energy is a workable policy. Why bigger government at every turn?

——————————–

Appendix: ACC’s “About’ Section

The ACC was founded in 2017 based on the belief that economic and environmental success go hand-in-hand. 

The ACC seeks to mobilize younger conservatives to environmental action through common-sense, market-based, and limited-government ideals.

In 2020, ACC created the American Climate Contract, a solutions-based framework for climate action focused on energy innovation, modernizing America’s energy infrastructure, and conservation efforts.

On March 9, ACC’s founder Benji Backer co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Examiner with GOP House Leader Kevin McCarthy and two other Republicans explaining how the Republican Party can put conservatives back into conservation.”

Appendix: ACC‘s ‘American Climate Contract

‘Climate change is among the most significant challenges facing the United States—and the world — in the 21st century. From rising sea-levels to increased extreme weather events, our health, well-being, and security will be impacted without significant decreases in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Sound science demonstrates that there is an undeniable link between human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change. It is vital that the United States government, foreign partners, and the private sector work jointly to reduce global emissions and help communities adapt to the direct and indirect impacts of climate change.

The United States is the global economic powerhouse, innovation hub, and leader of the free world. As a result, it is our moral responsibility to play a leading role in the response to the threats posed by climate change. Both inaction and unrealistic proposals are insufficient responses. The United States should prioritize actionable policy solutions that will generate environmental and economic benefits for all Americans impacted by climate change and for the betterment of future generations.

ENERGY INNOVATION

The United States should continue to lead in developing innovative energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while promoting diverse sources of energy to ensure energy independence. This can be accomplished by expanding public-private partnerships by facilitating collaboration among federal agencies and the private sector in the development and commercialization of affordable emissions-reducing technologies. Congress should identify inefficiencies and recalibrate the investment of government funding to prioritize the advancement of affordable and exportable clean energy technologies that reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE

The United States should modernize its infrastructure to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout its transportation systems and built environment. Developing smart grids will make it easier to transport energy efficiently, increase reliability, and reduce costs to the American public. Integrating low and zero-emissions technology into transportation infrastructure is also critical to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The use of clean energy in our transportation systems, including transit, rail, passenger vehicle, and aviation will reduce emissions. It is also critical that we reduce embodied carbon in our built environment. To accomplish these goals, Congress should use targeted investment and regulatory streamlining to modernize the United States’ infrastructure.

NATURAL SOLUTIONS

The United States should pursue natural climate solutions that store carbon and enhance resiliency. Investing in projects such as wetland restoration and reforestation will expand carbon sinks and facilitate the natural processes that reduce atmospheric carbon. To accomplish this, private landowners, such as farmers and forest owners, states, and federal land management agencies should be incentivized to pursue land management and conservation strategies that maximize carbon storage. Prioritizing natural solutions like active forest management will also ensure that the United States is better prepared for natural disasters and extreme weather. These natural solutions will promote the mitigation of climate change impacts while simultaneously fostering enhanced resiliency.

GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT

The United States should engage with partner nations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and develop climate adaptation practices. By developing, promoting, and deploying technologies and resources to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, the United States will be a leader and an example to the rest of the world.

Appendix C: Questions & Answers (ACC website)

WHY DO WE NEED A NEW APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

Proposals like the Paris Accord and the Green New Deal have failed thus far. Whether you support those proposals or not, it’s time for a new approach to climate change that brings people from across the political spectrum together behind policies that will make a real difference – now

HOW IS THE AMERICAN CLIMATE CONTRACT DIFFERENT FROM THE GREEN NEW DEAL?

The Green New Deal inspired millions of young people to call for action on climate change. But the Green New Deal is a wishlist of progressive policies, not a real climate plan. Now is the time to harness the energy of grassroots climate activism and focus it on effective solutions. The American Climate Contract identifies actionable policies and provides a framework for future progress. The American Climate Contract expands the coalition for climate action and lays out a clear path forward for success.

WHY IS THERE NO EMISSIONS TARGET?

Scientists agree that we need to achieve global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The American Climate Contract recognizes this target, but more importantly, identifies the policies we need in order to achieve it. Past climate plans have focused on rigid targets, particularly for the United States, which contributes about 15% to global greenhouse gas emissions. The American Climate Contract focuses on solutions that will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions today.

WILL THE AMERICAN CLIMATE CONTRACT SOLVE CLIMATE CHANGE?

There is no silver bullet solution for climate change. Too often, climate activists have chosen to dismiss opportunities for progress while waiting for the “perfect” solution. The American Climate Contract focuses on real steps that will make a difference today.

HOW WILL THE AMERICAN CLIMATE CONTRACT CREATE PROGRESS ON CLIMATE CHANGE?

The American Climate Contract is supported by an unprecedented coalition. It brings experts and activists, liberals and conservatives, environmental organizations and energy groups together behind real climate action. It is an innovative approach that uses carrots, not sticks, to make our country cleaner and greener. The American Climate Contract is a forward-looking plan that focuses on action now.

DOES THE AMERICAN CLIMATE CONTRACT CALL FOR A CARBON TAX?

No.