Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Conversation author Nicolas Gunkel seems to think mayors deceiving voters is a good thing.
Many Republican mayors are advancing climate-friendly policies without saying so
Nicolas Gunkel
Research Fellow at Boston University Initiative on Cities, Boston University
May 30, 2018 8.38pm AEST
…
In our research at the Boston University Initiative on Cities, we found that large-city Republican mayors shy away from climate network memberships and their associated framing of the problem. But in many cases they advocate locally for policies that help advance climate goals for other reasons, such as fiscal responsibility and public health. In short, the United States is making progress on this issue in some surprising places.
…
The real measure of Republican mayors taking action on climate change is not the number of networks they join but the policy steps they take, often quietly, at home. While few Republican mayors may attend the next round of sub-national climate summits, many have set out policy agendas that mitigate climate change, without calling a lot of attention to it – much like a number of rural U.S. communities. Focusing narrowly on policy labels and public commitments by mayors fails to capture the various forms of local climate action, especially in GOP-led cities.
Carmel, Indiana Mayor James Brainard has suggested that some of his less-outspoken counterparts may fear a backlash from conservative opinion-makers. “There is a lot of Republicans out there that think like I do. They have been intimidated, to some extent, by the Tea Party and the conservative talk show hosts,” Brainard has said.
Indeed, studies show that the news environment has become increasingly polarized around accepting or denying climate science. Avoiding explicit mention of climate change is enabling a sizable number of big-city GOP mayors to pursue policies that advance climate goals.
In my opinion this apparent endorsement for political dishonesty is nothing short of disgusting. Deceiving voters undermines democracy. A vote only has value if politicians who win those votes fulfil their policy promises.
If mayors believe climate action is required they should take their case to voters, let voters decide how they want their tax money to be spent, instead of deceiving voters because they think they know better than the people who elected them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Which “Big City” Republican Mayors? They mention some guy from Carmel, IN. No offence, but Carmel is not a “Big City”. And of course, the greatest factor in the USA meeting the failed Paris Goals, (which we did, and no other country cane close) was the booming fracking industry freeing up all the beautiful natural gas and oil!
What is happening is that the climate extremists are once again redefining the issues.
They wish to claim that any infrastructure upgrades or maintenance decisions are driven ny their obssession.
This is just another step in theses kooks hijacking the public square.
Wyoming Republicans do that all the time, only they tell because they think Wyomingites are clueless. Governor got the “prove global warming is true” supercomputer, not caring if it “proves” that AGW is true, the states economy collapses (he has plenty of money, what does he care?). Power company trying to destroy oil, gas and coal with useless wind turbines. Putting in the “Barack Obama Tribute Wind Plant” on I80 to impress all the libs. Yep, when a democrat gets back in the White House and Wyoming is basically shut down, I think they asked for it.
I will take a nuanced approach to this.
It all depends on what policies they mean. Climate Change policies could be wide ranging, so normal flood management could be considered “climate change” mitigation but so could a carbon tax.
Exactly. Regardless of what the propaganda machine says, we have to applaud policies that benefit all (reducing energy waste saves money, etc.), and not those that degrade budgets, people, or the environment. To do otherwise would be reactionary — to just react against anything labelled “climate change” would be no better than those who react for anything labelled “climate change”.
Gunkel’s analysis is disingenuous: it claims for “climate change” policies that make sense regardless of their ideological position, in a way that would tend to produce blowback against Republican mayors who are acting in the (actual) public interest.
Agreed. The second Gunkel gives shows that Tulsa has had a longstanding flooding problem, predating Gorebal warming by decades. Much has already been done to mitigate this. If I was mayor, would I seek federal funds to do more cuz Gorebal warming? Sure I would.
This wouldn’t surprise me – there’s a lot of rats on both sides of the aisle.