Varney & Co: Biden’s green energy push is really energy destructionVarney & Co:

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

After a week of limbo and 14 failed ballots, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was finally elected Speaker of the House last week. The chaotic start to the 118th Congress was the opposite of what most House Republicans were hoping for. Instead of showing up united and ready to work on the priorities they won a majority with, their dirty laundry was aired before the nation on C-SPAN.

Midterm polling showed that voters wanted solutions, not grandstanding, from political leaders on the issues that mattered most. Among those issues were affordability and climate, which poll respondents said were the two most urgent issues facing our nation. Last week’s rocky start did not inspire confidence in voters about the GOP’s capabilities — 20 members allowed infighting over internal rules to overshadow the issues their constituents expressly said they cared about.

Now that the intra-party dispute has been resolved, it’s time for House Republicans to deliver what the American people want: lower energy costs — and lower emissions.

The 117th Congress, despite the media narrative of partisanship and gridlock, was incredibly productive when it came to bipartisan solutions for issues like climate change. The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for instance, was the result of months of negotiations in the Senate and included significant measures for climate resilience and clean energy. The Growing Climate Solutions Act, which was ultimately included in the end-of-year omnibus bill, garnered the support of 92 senators to empower farmers and ranchers to utilize sustainable practices on their lands. The Senate even ratified the Kigali Amendment, an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to limit the use of pollution-driving hydrofluorocarbons, on a bipartisan basis.

This approach to legislating is what we need in the 118th Congress. House Republicans have many leaders on environmental issues, from House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman’s (R-Ark.) forestry expertise to energy innovation advocate House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) to Conservative Climate Caucus Chairman John Curtis’s (R-Utah) thought leadership.

In his Commitment to America, McCarthy lays out a path forward on climate and energy issues. This approach may look different from that of the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for bipartisan consensus and real legislative work.

There are a plethora of issues that could garner significant bipartisan support. The 2023 Farm Bill provides a significant opportunity for natural climate solutions and climate resilience. Members of both parties have signaled openness to permitting reform to unleash allAmerican energy production. Nuclear energy and critical mineral production, too, are areas where legislators can work together toward robust, bipartisan solutions. Both parties are all too familiar with detractor firebrands who prevent the body from legislating, but the American people have had enough.

The bottom line is: The American people saw dysfunction from the House when they should have seen legislating. Luckily, the 118th Congress has just begun, and there’s time for Congress to get to work.

Read the original here.

More ways to listen

Growing up in the Texas suburbs, almost every errand was at least a 30-minute commitment.

You’d have to get in your car, drive down a six-lane road, park in a lot double the size of the business, and then repeat the process to drive home. America’s bias toward car-dependent communities has made our people – and our climate – worse off.

I recently had the opportunity to tour Culdesac, a new development outside of Phoenix hoping to change this dynamic. The group is turning a 17-acre plot of land in Tempe into a dense, walkable, mixed-use community. When completed, it will be the first car-free community built from scratch in the United States.

The concept of a walkable city isn’t new. All cities built before the invention of the car were walkable by design. When you visit historic cities in the U.S., you find narrower roads and dense neighborhoods that encourage maximum convenience. But as our dependence on personal vehicles increased, roads got wider, cities started to spread out, and the concept of walking a few blocks to run an errand died for the majority of Americans.

Car-dependence is a systemic issue across the country. A clear example of this are the mandatory minimum parking requirements many local governments impose. In some cities, like my hometown of Houston, it means requiring a bar to build one parking space for every 71 square feet of bar space. These arbitrary requirements have also led to eyesores in our downtowns: dozens of parking surfaces that are rarely used to capacity, valuable space that could otherwise be used for housing or commercial use.

The demand for walkable communities among Americans is high, but supply remains low. According to a study by the National Association of Realtors, 52% of people want to live in more convenient, walkable neighborhoods, and those who do report an overall higher satisfaction with their quality of life. Yet, only about 8% of Americans live in neighborhoods with a walk score higher than 70%.

This discrepancy between high demand but low supply is due, in large part, to the regulatory and legal barriers that bar these communities from being built across the country.

The big question for me while touring the Culdesac development was, why Phoenix? It’s a metropolitan area infamous for its sprawl, so it would seem to be an unlikely place for a dense community like this.

But as the Culdesac team told us, their concept was exactly what the nearby city of Tempe wanted, so they were permitted in under a year. If they were to try this type of development in California, they said, it could take up to a decade just for the permit.

As America’s housing crisis grows, it is unconscionable that cities – especially those governed by progressives supposedly keen on affordable housing – are allowing NIMBY pressures to effectively outlaw these types of communities.

People clearly benefit when they live in walkable neighborhoods, but the environment stands to benefit as well. The most significant impact is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions due to fewer personal vehicle trips and increased energy efficiency. Everything from the density and special building materials to the shaded plazas and landscaped pathways help reduce overall temperatures and, as a result, air conditioning usage.

Compared to the urban heat island effect cities like Phoenix experience, you end up with a more enjoyable place to live. There is also a litany of economic and other long-term benefits of denser communities: maintenance costs are lower, public health is higher, child development is better supported, and social well-being increases. Building dense neighborhoods won’t result in a utopia, but they do stand to make our communities stronger.

Walkable cities are not for everyone. As people age and start families, they often want their own, larger spaces. But for many Americans who want to be close to urban amenities and connected to a community, this concept deserves a chance. As with any new concept, there will be kinks to work out like security, long-term affordability, and neighborhood politics, but the fact we are starting to see a rise in people-centered urbanism provides a great opportunity for the United States and our climate goals.

Building better cities improves the quality of life for our people, as well as the quality of our local environments. The cross-partisan appeal of these values has great potential to bridge divides and help Americans work together on common goals.

America has always been a nation of builders. From our great global cities to ambitious feats of engineering, our history is deeply rooted in pushing the envelope and blazing a trail into the future. We have a real opportunity to once again lead the world by building better communities that inspire, enrich, and support people. It’s time to legalize walkable cities.

Read the original here.

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.