In a March 2020 National Review article, Dan Crenshaw proposes a novel solution that highlights the limitations of politically instigated previous measures. According to him, the best way to address carbon emissions is through sequestration—capturing carbon dioxide and putting it to beneficial uses, ranging from plant growth to cement production. The author challenges the Green New Deal and carbon tax policies, which he views as unsustainable and counterproductive. To him, the country needs a scientific approach to climate change that sets aside politics and proves workable, inviting the government to allocate existing resources to research, develop, and deploy innovative solutions. Therefore, Crenshaw’s chief argument is for conservatives to “own” climate change to secure a safer America. I support Crenshaw’s argument because it surpasses politics to provide a long-awaited solution to carbon emissions and climate change. The author supports his argument by comparing a successful, innovative solution to the New Green Deal, the carbon tax, and other global policies that have yet to resolve the increasingly problematic climate crisis.
Crenshaw pokes holes in what he terms dogmatic obsessions for eliminating fossil fuels. Citing the Green New Deal, he shows how over-ambitious alternatives fail to deliver sustainable solutions to climate change, necessitating “reasoned, scientific, free-market-friendly” measures (Crenshaw). The Green New Deal is unsuitable because it calls for a “crushing” of the economy at a critical time and is not workable. In Crenshaw’s view, fossil fuels still offer the most reliable way out of global energy demand. As such, making them safer for the environment is more reasonable than obsessing about doing away with them altogether. Capturing carbon dioxide provides a workable solution. Equally challenged are carbon tax policies, which inadvertently increase emissions by licensing emitters. According to Crenshaw, the US may not stop other countries from emitting if they can rely on the carbon tax policy, which is inevitable given developing countries’ need to grow. Instead of such policies, the world needs more sustainable solutions.
The author cites numerous examples of previous alternatives that failed terribly. The best comes from Germany, which invested heavily in destroying its (non-renewable) energy sources in favor of renewable ones, only to resort to Russia’s more emissive energy. He, therefore, cautions the US could land in a similar fate if it pursues the Green New Deal. Instead of adopting the German style, Crenshaw prescribes the “New Energy Frontier,” citing other examples to show why it can succeed. A remarkable example of a similarly thought-out plan is the US’s adoption of natural gas beginning in 2005, which has seen it minimize carbon emissions by 15 percent (Crenshaw). According to Crenshaw, the US must export such innovative technologies worldwide because the global energy demand is increasing. In the next 20 years, energy demand will hike by as high as 25 percent (Crenshaw). At the same time, developing countries rapidly demand energy, and so do primary emitters like China. Since innovation has worked to reduce carbon dioxide, it is undoubtedly the best way out.
Besides having worked in the past, the reasoned, scientific measures Crenshaw proposes enjoy considerable resources to support them. The US is a massive investor in environmental technology, as evidenced by its natural gas project. Utilizing its resources, it can scale up the New Energy Frontier to power more homes while harnessing carbon dioxide for other purposes. A Houston-based company has already demonstrated its ability to power 5,000 homes using a natural gas electricity plant (Crenshaw). Therefore, the country can divert its energy department’s finances to developing similar technologies, reaping significant positive results in the long term. Per the author, the most important thing is for the country to change its perceptions about carbon dioxide. Instead of viewing it as a problematic by-product, one should view it as a growth resource with the potential to scale up growth through crop production and other uses.
I support Crenshaw’s proposal for several reasons. First, this is not a political debate but a scientific, innovative approach to climate change, a problem that Democrats and Republicans agree demands urgent redress. As the article’s title suggests, it is time for those who traditionally hold conservative thoughts about approaching climate change to own this issue for the sake of the global fraternity. Crenshaw’s suggestion is timely because, as he observes, the global energy demand is increasing, and (without a better solution) other countries are deemed to use available technology. Unfortunately, fossil fuels remain convenient for most countries, considering that few have adopted successful alternatives. As such, it is time to set politics aside and enact a reliable solution, notwithstanding attacks from those who might hold opposing views.
Secondly, earlier proposals to address climate change (especially those originating in the political class) have failed. The Green New Deal has dominated American politics for a long time, culminating in not more than mere political debates that have yet to provide a lasting solution to the global problem. Instead of politicizing climate change, the world needs a scientific solution that carefully balances the risks and benefits and respects people’s right to choose. As Crenshaw observes, the New Energy Frontier is a market solution in that it originates from an impartial, technologically driven party. As such, its success depends on whether or not it can (in the public’s eye) eliminate carbon emissions, not whether or not it receives support from either political divide. Already, what one would term a pilot trial has proved successful in powering 5,000 homes, encouraging the government to support research and development of the technology.
More importantly, Crenshaw’s proposal simultaneously addresses other problems facing America, namely food security and energy shortages. Since carbon dioxide is critical to plant growth, tapping it to grow crops can increase food production, which the country can export to accelerate economic growth. Besides, the new industry can create employment for scientists and other specialists, helping to reduce unemployment and inspiring other countries to adopt similar technologies. By likening his proposal to “the trillion trees program,” Crenshaw envisions a familiar, real solution that Americans and anyone else can visualize and support. His is not another political debate but an immediate, urgent solution.
Dan Crenshaw challenges conservatives to “own” climate change and adopt his New Energy Frontier to address the problem once and for all. By highlighting the flaws of previous approaches to climate change, the author effectively envisions a familiar solution based on carbon sequestration, which can eliminate emissions and enhance food production. I support the proposal because it is entirely market-driven, innovative, and more sustainable than the otherwise politically instigated alternatives that have yet to address climate change.
Crenshaw, Dan. “It’s Time for Conservatives to Own the Climate–Change Issue.” National Review, 3 Mar. 2020, www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/its-time-for-conservatives-to-own-the-climate-change-issue/.