Latest Media

Co-written with Former Senator Cory Gardner (CO)

Hailed by many as the greatest land conservation legislation in a generation, the Great American Outdoors Act ushered in a new era of bipartisan conservation three years ago today. Thanks to the leadership of conservatives in Congress – including Senator Cory Gardner – President Trump signed the bipartisan bill into law on August 4, 2020.

Not only did this bill fully and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, it also provided $1.9 billion annually to address a growing maintenance backlog at national parks. In the senator’s home state of Colorado, for example, the beloved Rocky Mountain National Park was able to update and improve its campgrounds and utilities using GAOA funding. This is just one of many examples of how this funding helped expand and protect access to America’s best idea, our national parks and public lands.

We’re proud to say, though, that GAOA was just the beginning. Since its passage, several bipartisan energy and conservation bills have passed through Congress and were signed into law, including the Energy Act of 2020 and the VIP Act. Like GAOA, ACC’s membership of young people was instrumental in getting these historic reforms over the finish line. This grassroots momentum also helped lead to the creation of the Conservative Climate Caucus – now the fourth largest caucus in the House of Representatives Republican conference.

Harkening back to the land conservation of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the conservative movement’s embrace of environmental issues isn’t new, but the legacy has been reignited in recent years. The conservative approach to climate change and conservation issues is one of balance between solving the issues at hand while also ensuring economic stability and opportunity. Young conservatives have pushed the Republican Party and its elected officials to not just talk about the conservative approach to conservation, but to act on it.

Polling done after the 2022 midterms by Frank Luntz shows young Republicans are “more likely” to vote for a candidate who supports immediate action on climate by a percentage nearly comparable to young voters at-large. Moreover, a plurality of respondents indicated they wanted more emphasis on climate change by Congress. Young conservatives are clear that they want to see climate action from their party’s elected officials. The question is, how will Republicans in Congress put conservative environmentalism into action and deliver on a cleaner and more prosperous future?

Today, we celebrate 3 years since the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, but we also recognize that more must be done by Congress to help us better steward our lands and avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Read the original here.

As Republicans prepare to debate in Milwaukee, matters of the environment are top of mind for many young voters, including conservatives watching the field shape up. Stephen Perkins of the American Conservation Coalition joins Jim to explain how the group is working on the ground in Milwaukee to engage the candidates as they work to win over a new generation of voters.

Watch it here

More ways to listen

The Irish government is considering a “dairy cow massacre” to reduce emissions and meet climate targets. If that sounds insane, it’s because it is. Even conservative influencer Ashley St. Clair and entrepreneur Elon Musk agreed on Twitter, which sparked much discussion – and outrage – across Europe and the United States.

This isn’t the first time climate alarmists have lost the plot and resorted to extreme “solutions.” In recent years, environmentalists have urged people to not have children, give up their pets, stay away from houseplants, and now, slaughter farm animals.

Being anti-life – whether it be animal or human – is no way to fight climate change. As an environmentalist, I want to preserve the health of our planet so that life can be abundant, not nonexistent.

For too long, we’ve operated under the assumption humans and our society are a disease on the earth that needs to be cured. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, human society has contributed to environmental challenges, like climate change, but we’ve also made incredible advances and discoveries. Whether it be in art, science, or agriculture, it’s clear humans are not the disease; we’re the cure.

There are many diverse solutions to the climate challenges we face, but I can assure you ending the lives of 200,000 dairy cows prematurely is not one of them. Sacrificing life – any life – for emissions reductions is a poor precedent to set, and it frankly won’t be effective. In the United States, for instance, dairy cows account for 1.3% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Surely, we could be spending our efforts elsewhere instead of terrorizing the agricultural sector.

Moreover, there are often more elegant and innovative ways to mitigate the effects of climate change than the extreme measures proposed. For instance, regenerative agriculture techniques such as the usage of cover crops for grazing to improve soil quality are already in use all around the world. Allowing cattle to roam and graze naturally, rather than overgrazing pastures, has proven an effective way for both the animals and the ecosystem to thrive. Those in agriculture have also discovered simply switching out dairy cows’ feed can greatly reduce methane emissions associated with their herds. 

These solutions are not only more humane than the options Ireland is considering, but they’re also more forward-looking. Reducing the size of dairy cow herds in one fell swoop would be a short-term emissions reduction, sure, but in the long term, there would be no progress in making the industry more sustainable overall. We know logically we cannot, as a society, survive without a robust agricultural sector, so we should strive to incrementally reduce its environmental impact, not exterminate it.

Protecting our planet should also mean protecting the life on it. We shouldn’t sacrifice life for the planet, or the planet for life. Instead, we should take an approach – such as regenerative agriculture for this instance – that allows constructive collaboration between nature and society. The alternative is pursuing medicine worse than the disease.

Read the original here.