Environment
Summary—
Conservatives can and do care about the environment. We must take steps to preserve our quality of life. But protecting our environment doesn’t mean turning our backs on economic opportunity. We must make businesses allies in caring for the earth and make wise choices that reduce our impact on the environment and save money over the long run. I will not ignore threats to our quality of life in Utah, but I will also not support environmental regulations that will cripple business.
2012 Legislative Update—
In 2012 the legislature modified the makeup and responsibilities of Department of Environmental Quality boards. Critics suggested these boards would lose their independence and have less authority. They suggest that would harm our environment.The issue the legislature considered is the independence of these boards. I have greater trust in decisions being made by our elected officials and their immediate appointees than I do in independent boards or commissions. Which is more likely to be responsive and accountable to the public? I believe it is the one that will have to face voters periodically, either on a direct or indirect basis.
Consider it this way: which group is likely to be more accountable to the public (voters), those that are elected and their immediate appointees, or an unelected group of individuals. So-called independent boards tend not to be independent at all. To put it another way, if such boards take action that the public considers to be contrary to the public good, how do we vote them out of office?
This bill focuses responsibility for DEQ policies more squarely on the shoulders of the Governor's cabinet member that heads DEQ than it was previously. The bill does not weaken the ability of these boards to protect the interests of the public. On the contrary, it strengthens it.
The 2012 legislature also considered funding a task force to address air quality concerns. Since it was one of at least eight task forces being considered, and since the legislature only came up with money to fund two, air quality issues were rolled into the charter of an economic development task force that was funded. Reason? Air quality has sometimes been mentioned as a contributing factor in companies’ decisions not to locate in Utah.
The 2012 legislature also took steps to provide flexibility to utility companies in the types of renewable and non-renewable sources of energy production they use to meet power demand. The legislature also renewed tax credits for alternative energy sources and included the following list of alternatives:
geothermal energy;
hydroelectric energy;
solar energy;
wind energy; or
energy that is derived from:
nuclear fuel;
oil-impregnated diatomaceous earth;
oil sands;
oil shale; or
petroleum coke
2011 Legislative Update—
The 2011 legislature urged the Federal Government to delist wolves in order to minimize predation on livestock and pets. The body also called on the EPA once again not to regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
2010 Legislative Update—
The 2010 legislature passed two resolutions dealing with the environment. In one they petitioned the EPA not to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In the other they admonished the governor to withdraw from Western Climate Initiative. Many scientists may disagree with these resolutions, but others do not. I believe that the EPA’s decree with respect to CO2 was made more on the basis of an agenda than on scientific evidence. It is also apparent that Huntsman’s decision to join the WCI was not consistent with the legislature’s policy guidance at the time. For these reasons, the legislature is clearly justified in expressing its resolve to reconsider these decisions.
On a related note, the legislature passed a bill allowing private property owners to harvest a defined amount of rainwater for use on their property—a welcome concession to those who wish to collect and store rainfall to water their gardens.
Read More Below ...
I am disappointed with liberals, who act as if they have a corner on the market when it comes to caring about the environment. I think we as Republicans can and should care about the environment, and I think we can make a difference. Conservatism at its root is about conserving what is most worthwhile. It means we stand for traditional values and we seek to preserve what is best about our communities, culture, and surroundings.
We don't have to be closed-minded disciples of the church of global warming (which I am not) to care about conserving what's best in the world around us. We don't need to fabricate data and suppress viewpoints that contradict liberal orthodoxy in order to appreciate the abundant energy, scenic vistas, and incredible quality of life that are ours in this great state of Utah and to want to preserve them.
Whatever our motivation for making our world a better place—whether we enjoy hunting, hiking, mountain biking, skiing, or just breathing—we all need a healthy ecosystem. One of my favorite lines from Sarah Palin's new book is when she says:
"I always remind people from outside our state that there’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals – right next to the mashed potatoes."
Of course she wouldn't have a chance to hunt her favorite moose or caribou up there without a healthy natural environment. But does protecting our environment mean we have to turn our backs on economic opportunity? Absolutely not.
Too often environmentalists seem to work against businesses instead of with them. I believe businesses are natural allies in the search for workable solutions to environmental challenges. As both a businessman and a private citizen, I know that prudent stewardship over energy and natural resources is not only good for the planet and my health (and that of my family and community), it's also good for my bottom line. An example is the swamp cooler at our home. Experts tell me we're improving the environment by using evaporative cooling instead of central air conditioning at the Nielson home. Yes, it uses much less electricity, so that surely leads to less pollution from generating that electricity. But did I mention that it saves us a lot of money? I have to admit, that’s my motivation.
Let me give you another example from my profession. Among my fellow architects, the word sustainability gets a lot of press these days. It is supposed to mean doing things today in a way that doesn't compromise our children's options tomorrow. This isn't really a new idea. In my years of practice, long before sustainability entered our vocabulary, I have always encouraged clients to include good quality, high-performance features in their buildings. The modest cost of such improvements is offset in just a few years by operating savings—particularly reduced energy costs. And generally such buildings result in better environments that lead to more productive workers as well—yielding even quicker paybacks.
Just as we do when we set out to create energy-efficient or sustainable buildings, we can and should evaluate public policies affecting the environment by weighing the initial investment against all the associated costs and benefits down the road. I am convinced that if we will assess the true impacts of our decisions, both on our surroundings and our long-term bottom line, we can build a future that is both environmentally and economically sustainable.
As your representative, I will not ignore real threats to the quality of our life here in Utah. At the same time, I will not support environmental regulations that will cripple our state's ongoing potential for economic development.