It is hard to imagine how someone can be considered a Conservative if they don’t act to conserve the most important thing we have, the Earth’s environment. Some may say they do, but not now, not in that way, or not at that cost. Some perpetuate the myth that conservation and environmental protection are “liberal causes” to justify their opposition. The truth is that conservation and environmental stewardship are core conservative values. Past Republican leaders have been strong advocates for environmental stewardship and have enacted some of our most significant environmental legislation.

Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for greatly expanding our National Park system and permanently preserving many of the United States’ unique natural resources. Richard Nixon enacted many of the nation’s landmark environmental laws, including the creation of the EPA. According to Nixon,” The price of economic growth need not and will not be deterioration in the quality of our lives and our surroundings.” Barry Goldwater, dubbed “Mr. Conservative”, was a gifted photographer who produced beautiful pictures illustrating his beloved Arizona landscape. According to him, “While I am a believer in the free enterprise system, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.”

Ronald Reagan preserved a total of 10.6 million acres of wilderness. He signed the Montreal Protocol — which dramatically reduced depletion of the upper atmosphere’s protective ozone layer. He developed a cap–and–trade system that prevented acid rain from blowing into Canada, and it cost far less than even the government had estimated. John McCain, during his 2008 presidential campaign, proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. He cosponsored cap-and-trade bills in the Senate in 2003, 2005, and 2007 and, as he said then, “A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.”

Cap-and-trade was once considered the best solution for reducing carbon emissions. When popular, a number of key Republicans, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), endorsed the policy. While in the state legislature, Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) supported the policy as “an important step towards improving our environment.”

But now Republican leaders are claiming cap-and-trade would cost too much, at about $3,100 per household annually. That cost has great sticker shock, but according to MIT economist Dr. John Reilly, that number is “totally inaccurate”. He should know, as it was his work that was distorted to get that cost. More realistically, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost would average $175 per household at that time and that the associated savings would reduce the federal deficit by tens of billions of dollars. The cost of not acting may be extremely high. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences detailed the high economic costs of inadequate environmental legislation, including reduced streamflow, reduced rainfall, and lower crop yields. Estimates by the World’s top economists, such as Britain’s Nicholas Stern, are that it would now cost about 2% of the world’s GDP to mitigate environmental damage. If ignored, it could rise to 20% of GDP by 2050 – and put us at risk of an environmental catastrophe.

The Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) has proposed a better way than Cap and Trade. It developed a Carbon Fee and Dividend system, which would be much less expensive, would require no additional legislation, and would produce deeper cuts in pollution in a shorter time.  CCL’s proposal would place a fee on carbon at the source, and market forces would then encourage reduced emissions, energy conservation, and investments in renewable energy.  The Carbon Fee would be originally set at $15 per ton, and would be increased each year until our pollution goals are met. The carbon fee is not a tax. The money collected from the fee would be distributed equally to every US citizen as a monthly energy dividend of several hundred dollars.

Republicans should insist on action. The misinformation, the damage to the environment, and the additional expense that would be caused by not acting should alarm traditional Republicans. However, according to the Republicans for Environmental Protection, “the GOP establishment has lost sight of its core conservative values, largely due to the influence of corporate lobbies and political leaders beholden to them for campaign support. The result has been a polarizing battle that is not about the advance of conservative principles, but rather the advance of special interest political agendas.”  Republicans need to reclaim their environmental leadership role.