GOP presidential candidates: The environment is also a conservative issue

At the last two Republican presidential debates, each GOP hopeful made the case that he or she had the right solutions to the issues Americans care about most. 

At last night’s debate, they discussed the Israeli response to the Hamas atrocities, traded barbs over America’s involvement in Ukraine, argued about how to fix social security and health care and described how they would address pocketbook issues. 

Yet, despite the debate locations — the scenic Reagan Ranch and the natural beauty of Florida — one issue was conspicuously absent: the environment. 

The environment will not be the decisive issue in the 2024 election. Nevertheless, failing to offer a strong environmental agenda is an unforced error. 

In 2024, environmentally conscious Millennials and Gen Z will make up nearly half of all eligible voters. President Joe Biden, who has made climate change a top priority of his administration, will tout the billions of dollars of green investments flowing into communities as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Standing athwart the wave of youth eco-activism and the flood of green dollars yelling “stop” is not a winning strategy. 

Many Republicans’ hesitancy to embrace environmental issues is understandable. In recent years, progressive Democrats have often used environmentalism as a trojan horse to advance a political agenda. Intrusive mandates like banning gas stoves and top-down, big government policy proposals like the Green New Deal are at odds with conservatives’ core values of personal responsibility, limited government and free enterprise. Furthermore, Democrats’ insistence that climate change is the single greatest threat facing humanity — even more so than nuclear war — leaves Republicans bewildered. 

However, simply criticizing bad progressive policies or staying silent on environmental issues is not the answer — and it’s certainly not sufficient to earn Republicans the next generations’ vote. 

Republicans should reclaim the proud conservation legacy of GOP leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. They can do this by offering a pragmatic approach to three of the most pressing environmental challenges America faces. 

The first challenge is energy development. Unfortunately, the heated debate over climate change has created a false choice in the minds of many Americans: either renewable energy or fossil fuels. 

The truth is both renewables and fossil fuels present benefits and drawbacks. The only path forward for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring reliable, affordable energy is to use a mixture of both — a mix that is determined by its effectiveness in achieving these dual goals rather than politicians’ like or dislike of a particular energy source or technology. 

Too often, Republicans have reflexively opposed renewable technologies like wind and solar because they view them as part of the Democrats’ agenda. Instead, while it is appropriate to advocate for the responsible development of America’s fossil fuel resources — something which a number of candidates persuasively did at the debates — GOP leaders should also support the deployment of renewable energy as well as nuclear power. They should recognize the opportunity to build a new domestic supply chain and create an economic advantage in the global marketplace. 

Next, Republicans should chart a course out of America’s permitting quagmire. Well-intentioned environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act are today making it harder to protect the environment. 

On average, it takes four and a half years to complete NEPA reviews, delaying not only fossil fuel-related infrastructure but also renewable energy and other environmentally beneficial projects. While far-left environmental groups oppose many updates to environmental laws that no longer function as intended, Republicans should champion common-sense reforms. 

Finally, Republicans should celebrate and protect America’s unique wildlife and landscapes. The “Conservation President,” Teddy Roosevelt, established 230 million acres of public lands, including the first 55 federal bird reservations and game preserves. Today, more than one-third of U.S. species face an elevated risk of extinction. Yet, conserving habitats and species does not necessarily require a heavy-handed approach on the part of the federal government, as some conservatives fear. 

Instead, Republicans can propose innovative policy solutions that leverage knowledge of local communities and the private sector, such as the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. 

As the GOP presidential candidates prepare for the next debate in December, they should reflect on the words of Ronald Reagan, “Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it’s common sense.” 

By neglecting to mention common-sense approaches to the environment and conservation during the last few debates, they missed an opportunity to connect with the tens of millions of proud environmentalist Republicans and to invoke the GOP’s rich conservation legacy. In December, the candidates should come prepared with a pragmatic and forward-looking green agenda. 

Quill Robinson is a senior advisor with ConservAmerica. Jeff Kupfer is the president of ConservAmerica.