What Would Reagan Do About Climate Change?

Rationalist

Hail Voltaire
The climate change skeptics who populate our radio and television airwaves, such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, like to claim that their views match those of the late President Ronald Reagan. In doing so, they leave their audiences with the impression that Reagan would share their skepticism about climate change and oppose action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- an impression that liberals are equally happy to perpetuate.

Of course, their saying so does not make it true.

In reality, the howlers on talk radio and Fox News are less interested in following Reagan’s lead than they are in remaking him in their own image. Reagan is not their compass, but rather a cloak they wrap themselves in for credibility.

That is why you will never hear Limbaugh or Beck mention—much less praise—any of Reagan’s environmental accomplishments. His conservation record and his stewardship ethic do not project an image of Reagan that fits with their ideological agenda. So they ignore that aspect of Reagan’s conservatism—as do liberals, albeit for different reasons.

If Reagan were alive and serving as president today, no one could know exactly what he would do about a problem that was only beginning to be recognized during his administration, but we can glean clues based on a careful examination of his record.

Fortunately, we have an example from his presidency that is quite revealing in the context of the current climate change debate. Extremists on both the left and on the right might be surprised.

The Real “Ozone Man”

In 1984, researchers confirmed a hypothesis that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in aerosol sprays and refrigeration equipment were depleting the earth’s protective ozone layer.

They concluded that unless ozone-depleting chemicals were phased out, life on earth would be exposed to ever-increasing levels of dangerous ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun.

These findings met with much the same kind of skepticism and resistance that have greeted scientific conclusions about climate change—and from many of the same sources. Limbaugh, for example, has been a longstanding cynic regarding both ozone depletion and climate change. He dismisses each problem as a “hoax” and has made ridiculing them a staple of his act.

Reagan, when faced with mounting scientific concern about ozone depletion, listened to all sides, carefully weighed the facts, and ultimately sided with the climate scientists who were urging him to take prudent action to safeguard our atmosphere.

Despite strong opposition from Interior Secretary Don Hodel and other skeptics within his administration, President Reagan chose to push through a strong international treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals.

That 1987 treaty, the Montreal Protocol, is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty of all time.

A few months before the final negotiating session the United States’ chief negotiator for the treaty, Richard Benedick, was concerned that Hodel and others would convince Reagan to back off the U.S. position, which demanded significant near-term CFC reductions.

In a 2007 article entitled, Science, Diplomacy, and the Montreal Protocol, Benedick describes how he learned of the president’s decision:

In June 1987, with the final negotiating session at Montreal less than three months away, I was at the Reichstag in Berlin to deliver an address on the fortieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan when a breathless U.S. Embassy attaché brought me an “Eyes Only” personal cable from the White House. President Reagan thus became the world’s first head of state to personally approve a national negotiating policy on ozone protection. Ignoring the advice of some of his closest political friends, the President completely endorsed, point-by-point, the strong position of the State Department and EPA.

President Reagan decided to protect our atmosphere from a problem that, at the time, was not fully understood by scientists. He discounted the arguments of those who claimed that the problem was not real or that the economic cost would be too great.

Today, because of his bold leadership, our ozone layer is healing.

In the 2000 presidential race, former Vice President Al Gore was mocked by George W. Bush supporters with the label “Ozone Man.” Little did they know that the real “Ozone Man” is not Gore. It is Ronald Reagan.

Cap and Tirade

Turn on talk radio and you are likely to hear rant after rant about the evils of cap-and-trade legislation. Cap and trade is the common name for a market-based pollution control policy that sets caps on emissions and allows companies to buy and sell emission allowances.

By establishing a limited market for these tradable allowances, a cap-and-trade program puts a price on harmful emissions and provides the companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions. Companies that find effective ways of cutting their emissions can sell their unused allowances to companies that are still exceeding the cap level.

Under the traditional “command-and-control” approach to pollution reduction, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would not only set pollution limits, it would also prescribe the technology companies were required to implement to achieve those reductions.

It would probably come as quite a shock to Limbaugh and Beck, not to mention the tea party crowd and some GOP leaders, that the cap-and-trade method has a conservative lineage that can be traced back to the Reagan White House.

During Reagan’s presidency, acid rain was a huge environmental problem. In addition to committing funds for research and emissions control projects, Reagan asked his Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief—chaired by then Vice President George H.W. Bush— to examine incentives for the deployment of emissions control technologies and identify new opportunities to address the problem.

C. Boyden Gray, counsel for both Vice President Bush and the task force, became attracted to the idea of emissions trading as a market-friendly alternative to the “command-and-control” approach typically favored by bureaucrats.

President Reagan seemed to allude to this in his 1987 State of the Union address, saying:

We are also developing proposals that make use of market incentives to control air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and the causes of acid rain.

Reagan left the White House before the idea could be implemented, but Gray continued to work on the idea, and in 1990, the first Bush Administration successfully pushed through legislation establishing a cap-and-trade program to reduce acid rain. Cap and trade was a great success, reducing sulfur dioxide emissions faster and at a much lower cost than had been anticipated.

Move Over Al

When it comes to addressing climate change, Al Gore has become the 500-pound Donkey in the room. He is a climate hero to lefty environmentalists and the perfect butt of ridicule for climate skeptics. He even won a Nobel Peace prize for his work on climate change.

While Gore’s education and fund-raising efforts around the issue are laudable, his efforts have not yet resulted directly in significant greenhouse gas reductions.

With climate change, just as with ozone depletion, the real record of accomplishment belongs to Reagan.

The impact of greenhouse gas emissions on our climate were just starting to be understood as Reagan’s presidency was winding down. Research into what was then called the “greenhouse effect” was in early stages, and scientists had not accumulated the body of evidence they have today that links greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.

Still, as it turns out, it is Reagan’s successful negotiation of the Montreal Protocol treaty that stands as the biggest single accomplishment to date in reducing the greenhouse emissions responsible for global warming.

The CFCs controlled by the treaty are very potent greenhouse gases and, according to a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Montreal Protocol has prevented the equivalent of 135 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide since 1990. That is 10 times more greenhouse gas reductions than has been achieved by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that Gore helped negotiate.

Had President Reagan not heeded the advice of climate scientists and acted on the best available research at the time about ozone depletion—which was far less solid than the current state of knowledge about climate change—the climate change problem we face today would be even more daunting.

The Good Steward

There is a common perception that the Reagan Administration marked a shift away from environmental protection. While it is true that some officials within the Reagan Administration were vocal critics of environmental regulation, President Reagan himself was very much influenced by the conservation ethic of traditional conservatism and was more stewardship-minded than those on either the right or the left give him credit for.

Reagan talked a lot about having balanced policies that do not go too far towards one extreme or another. Today, when someone speaks of balance related to policy issues, it typically means that they want the policy to tilt more to their liking. When Reagan talked about balance, he meant it sincerely.

While he once complained that environmental groups were trying to turn the White House into a bird’s nest, he also said, “There are also people in the country that believe that they won't be satisfied unless they can pave over the entire countryside.”

In a 1982 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Reagan said, “I fancy myself an environmentalist” and there is a lot in his record as president and as governor of California to support that statement.

In a 1984 radio address to the nation, Reagan took credit for the strong action he took in California to combat smog, saying:

I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.

Despite all of the efforts, from the right and the left, to revise history by ignoring or misrepresenting Reagan’s environmental accomplishments, an honest look at his record reveals a good steward who fought to safeguard our natural heritage.

On issues ranging from ill-advised dams and highways, to air pollution and water quality, Reagan rose to the occasion.

He sided with climate scientists over skeptics and firmly dealt with the threat of ozone depletion.

His work to tackle the acid rain problem spawned a more market-friendly approach to pollution control called cap and trade.

So, how can anyone honestly believe that Ronald Reagan would not rise to the occasion and effectively tackle climate change as well?

Limbaugh, Beck, and copycat talk show hosts can rant all day and pretend they are channeling Reagan, but they are not. They cannot, because they utterly lack the conservative stewardship ethic that made Reagan the great leader he was.

If you really want to know what Reagan would do about climate change, the best advice is to take an honest look at his record.

LEADING THE WAY:
“I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.”

Reagan Environmental Milestones
 
The article is sure to irritate liberals who cannot accept that any good came of Reagan, and enrage conservatives who worship at his alter.
 
The article is sure to irritate liberals who cannot accept that any good came of Reagan, and enrage conservatives who worship at his alter.

i am a social progressive and fiscal conservative

i cannot say that i liked much of what reagan did, but CFC actions were highly necessary

republicans were originally for cap and trade until the dems were for it, so they backed off from it - what jerks

oh well - one of these days it will become readily apparent that CO2 is a problem, i just hope it is not too late when that happens
 
The article is sure to irritate liberals who cannot accept that any good came of Reagan, and enrage conservatives who worship at his alter.

I don't feel enraged.....I think the article makes a key point......he promoted balance, which clearly contrasts him with Gore and the majority of the current liberal environmentalists.....I also like the part about the ozone healing because of what Reagan did, even as Gore was demanding great sacrifice to accomplish what was already happening.....
 
The article is sure to irritate liberals who cannot accept that any good came of Reagan, and enrage conservatives who worship at his alter.
Probably. Most of modern day environmental law centers around four legislative acts. The Clean Air Act (CAA, 1963, signed into law by Kennedy), The Clean Water Act (1972, Veto by Nixon. Veto over ridden by congress), The Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA, 1976, Ford) and The Comprehensive Environmental Responce, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, 1980, Carter). Though Nixon might get some flack for vetoing the CWA, he also signed into law the creation of EPA and much of what we now about the framework of environmental law was legislated in bipartisan fashion under Reagan. Besides being a signatory on the Montreal Protocol Reagan implemented 5 major environmental legislative acts during his tenure. That places Reagan at #2 place for Presidents who implemented major environmental legislation. First place goes to the Nixon/Ford administration which introduced a total of 13 major environmental legislative act.

However, as in the case of the Clean Water Act. Neither Nixon or Reagan had much of a choice. These legislation we're so popular on a bipartisan basis that they had veto proof majorities.

On the other hand, if you want to be critical about Reagans environmental record just look at one of the worst decisions Reagan ever made. The hiring of James Watt.....a man of monumental mediocrity and less vision than Stevie Wonder. Watt was a one man wrecking crew as Interior secretary.
 
I dunno what would have become of the CFC matter if left unattended, but to my knowledge, the only serious holes that have appeared in the Ozone are in places such as over Antarctica, where the Antarctic Winter produces naturally thick clouds of CFCs.
 
The article is sure to irritate liberals who cannot accept that any good came of Reagan, and enrage conservatives who worship at his alter.

except Reagan did the right thing. Unlike today where the fear mongers are shouting consensus while lacking the data to support their conclusions. I doubt Reagan would have allowed something as morally bankrupt and useless as cap and trade to go through. It is nothing more than a shell game that redistributes money from one company to another (not to mention the myriad of ways Wall Street will corrupt the system).
 
If Reagan knew then what he would have known now, he probably would've established a reserve for crazy granolas out in Canada somewhere.
 
Last edited:
The article is sure to irritate liberals who cannot accept that any good came of Reagan, and enrage conservatives who worship at his alter.

Jame Havelock, who was the first to detect CFCs in the atmosphere has now come out and said that he was being alarmist over global warming.

In a March 2012 interview with MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had previously been "alarmist" about climate change: he still believes the climate is warming but just not as fast as previously thought.

"The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said…The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time ... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising - carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."[SUP][39][/SUP]
He is currently writing a book discussing how humanity can help regulate the Earth’s natural systems.[SUP][39][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock
 
I want to know, what does a decades-old ban on man-made CFCs which were thought to be harmful to the ozone and banned, have to do with carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming? Carbon dioxide is one of the most abundant elements in our universe, it was present in our atmosphere long before mankind roamed the planet. Trees and plant life THRIVE on carbon dioxide, and the planet couldn't support life without it.

Now.... let me ask you pinheads a question? Let's say it's 1972 again, and science has discovered some form of energy which produces emissions when burned, which are beneficial to trees and plants, would you have been all in favor of converting over to that fuel and abandoning everything else? Most people would think that is a liberal environmentalists DREAM... a fuel that produces emissions beneficial to plants and trees, wowzerz! Uhm..... that's carbon dioxide.
 
I want to know, what does a decades-old ban on man-made CFCs which were thought to be harmful to the ozone and banned, have to do with carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming? Carbon dioxide is one of the most abundant elements in our universe, it was present in our atmosphere long before mankind roamed the planet. Trees and plant life THRIVE on carbon dioxide, and the planet couldn't support life without it.

Now.... let me ask you pinheads a question? Let's say it's 1972 again, and science has discovered some form of energy which produces emissions when burned, which are beneficial to trees and plants, would you have been all in favor of converting over to that fuel and abandoning everything else? Most people would think that is a liberal environmentalists DREAM... a fuel that produces emissions beneficial to plants and trees, wowzerz! Uhm..... that's carbon dioxide.

LOL - the more carbon dioxide, the BETTER!

Idiot. Don't talk science on this board, with anyone, ever.
 
LOL - the more carbon dioxide, the BETTER!

Idiot. Don't talk science on this board, with anyone, ever.

Is botany a science, moron?

Well, botanists routinely pump MORE and MORE CO2 into greenhouses to stimulate growth, because MORE IS BETTER!

You see.... in 6th or 7th grade... maybe 5th... we learned that plants, trees, and all vegetation, converts CO2 to O2 in it's process of life. Most of the areas on the planet where vegetation doesn't grow, it is largely due to a lack of CO2. Amazingly enough, scientists discovered that not only is CO2 essential to growth of plant life, it also gives plants the ability to retain moisture, enhancing their growth process. Dendrochronologists, the scientists who study tree rings, say that up until the last 150 years, our trees were starving for CO2.

So now.... here are people who are scientists, who disagree with climatologists about CO2 and it's effects on life. They aren't idiots or ignorant of science, they just have a different perspective and disagree with your perspective. In order to refute their scientific findings, you'll have to do better than scream "idiot" at them. Sorry.
 
Is botany a science, moron?

Well, botanists routinely pump MORE and MORE CO2 into greenhouses to stimulate growth, because MORE IS BETTER!

You see.... in 6th or 7th grade... maybe 5th... we learned that plants, trees, and all vegetation, converts CO2 to O2 in it's process of life. Most of the areas on the planet where vegetation doesn't grow, it is largely due to a lack of CO2. Amazingly enough, scientists discovered that not only is CO2 essential to growth of plant life, it also gives plants the ability to retain moisture, enhancing their growth process. Dendrochronologists, the scientists who study tree rings, say that up until the last 150 years, our trees were starving for CO2.

So now.... here are people who are scientists, who disagree with climatologists about CO2 and it's effects on life. They aren't idiots or ignorant of science, they just have a different perspective and disagree with your perspective. In order to refute their scientific findings, you'll have to do better than scream "idiot" at them. Sorry.

Good lord you are stupid.
 
I'm sure Dix would think we'd be better off if the atmosphere was 100% pure oxygen, as well. After all, we NEED oxygen. More oxygen has to be GOOD.
 
Good lord you are stupid.

Really? Well why don't you elaborate on that, genius? Tell us what I said that was "stupid" as you put it? Or are you incapable of backing up your allegations? Are you a real man, or a sniveling little pissant twerp who can't do anything but hurl insults at people and hope they don't notice how pathetically dumb you are?
 
I'm sure Dix would think we'd be better off if the atmosphere was 100% pure oxygen, as well. After all, we NEED oxygen. More oxygen has to be GOOD.

Actually, if our atmosphere were 100% oxygen we'd all die. And you used the term "as well" with that, did your retard ass think that your read me claiming we need a 100% CO2 atmosphere or something? Because, that's not what was said, and you really need to work on your comprehension skills.

Moderate fluctuation in CO2 levels, or any other element, has been a fact of life on this planet long before liberal enviro-pinheads. I suspect it will be a fact of life long after they are gone. Mankind has NEVER been able to manipulate or control the climate. To foolishly adopt some idiocy that we CAN control the climate, is absolutely ludicrous. As I so aptly stated earlier, we could literally spend every penny we have and implement every initiative we could think of, to prevent man from contributing to greenhouse gasses, and one single small volcanic eruption would undo centuries of our efforts in a matter of days. Mother Nature is much more powerful than environmental wackos.

The level of abject stupidity of warmers is evident when they start talking about oceans rising and swallowing up our lands! Are you so ignorant that you don't understand how ocean convection works? IF we EVER reached a point where melting icebergs caused the oceans to rise enough to actually do what you claim, the effects of the cool waters would cause the ocean convection to stop working and everything in the ocean would die, and it would become a stagnant body of water, unable to support life of any kind. This would happen before the average ocean levels worldwide rose by more than a foot.
 
Au contraire, Rebel Rebel - your basic logic is that if something is good, more has to be better.

It's pretty faulty logic.
 
Actually, if our atmosphere were 100% oxygen we'd all die. And you used the term "as well" with that, did your retard ass think that your read me claiming we need a 100% CO2 atmosphere or something? Because, that's not what was said, and you really need to work on your comprehension skills.

Moderate fluctuation in CO2 levels, or any other element, has been a fact of life on this planet long before liberal enviro-pinheads. I suspect it will be a fact of life long after they are gone. Mankind has NEVER been able to manipulate or control the climate. To foolishly adopt some idiocy that we CAN control the climate, is absolutely ludicrous. As I so aptly stated earlier, we could literally spend every penny we have and implement every initiative we could think of, to prevent man from contributing to greenhouse gasses, and one single small volcanic eruption would undo centuries of our efforts in a matter of days. Mother Nature is much more powerful than environmental wackos.

The level of abject stupidity of warmers is evident when they start talking about oceans rising and swallowing up our lands! Are you so ignorant that you don't understand how ocean convection works? IF we EVER reached a point where melting icebergs caused the oceans to rise enough to actually do what you claim, the effects of the cool waters would cause the ocean convection to stop working and everything in the ocean would die, and it would become a stagnant body of water, unable to support life of any kind. This would happen before the average ocean levels worldwide rose by more than a foot.

The ocean level is rising moron.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise


Sea level measurements from 23 long tide gauge records in geologically stable environments show a rise of around 200 millimetres (8 inches) per century, or 2 mm/year.


Changes in sea level since the end of the last glacial episode


Sea levels are rising. Current sea level rise potentially impacts human populations (e.g., those living in coastal regions and on islands)[SUP][1][/SUP] and the natural environment (e.g., marine ecosystems).[SUP][2][/SUP] Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year over 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[SUP][3][/SUP] an increase on earlier estimates.[SUP][4][/SUP] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Two main factors contributed to observed sea level rise.[SUP][6][/SUP] The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands.[SUP][7][/SUP] The second is from the contribution of land-based ice due to increased melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets.
Sea level rise is one of several lines of evidence that support the view that the climate has recently warmed.[SUP][8][/SUP] It is likely that human-induced (anthropogenic) warming contributed to the sea level rise observed in the latter half of the 20th century.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries.[SUP][10][/SUP] In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that during the 21st century, sea level will rise another 18 to 59 cm (7.1 to 23 in), but these numbers do not include "uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow".[SUP][11][/SUP] Although IPCC explicitly refrained from projecting an upper limit of total sea level rise in the 21st century, one meter of sea level rise is well within the range of more recent projections.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP]
 
Back
Top