Mark Sanford: SC's Faux Green Governor

Perusing today's Washington Post, the Curmudgeon was surprised to see an op-ed piece on global climate change from none other than South Carolina's very red Republican governor Mark Sanford.

The headline, "Why the Right Needs to Get Invested in the Search for Climate Change Solutions" was certainly provocative. Could it be, we wondered, that even someone as far right as Mark Sanford was finally seeing the light on global warming?

Nope, not really. Sanford makes the logical point that conservatives need to join the debate on global climate change or simply be left out. He describes himself as a "conservationist," which means that, like many Republicans, he supports state tax subsidies to wealthy landowners to create "conservation easements" that restrict future development.

(We're not against conservation easements so long as the tax subsidies are not unreasonably generous and the restrictions on future development are real, which they often aren't. We are against conservatives like Sanford who "oppose" regulation and "raising" taxes, but don't think that subsidies in the form of tax breaks are also a form of regulation and state expenditure. If Sanford really meant what he says, he'd simply "encourage" wealthy landowners to set aside their land from development out of the goodness of their conservative Christian hearts.)

Apart, however, from saying that if conservatives don't act, they'll cede ground to "far-left interest groups", Sanford offers no prescription for action.

(When Sanford speaks of "far-left interest groups," he means anyone to the left of his far right agenda. And when he speaks of people "losing their rights and freedoms" he excludes Taliban-like Christian activists in his party who would love to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, especially in the bedroom.)

The plain fact is that South Carolina is far behind the curve when it comes to policies that will combat global warming. For example, South Carolina has no net metering law, which would require local utilities to allow businesses and homeowners to tie distributed renewable electricity sources, such as wind and solar, into the local power grid. SC is one of less than 10 states that don't have a net metering provision; its neighbors in Georgia and NC both have such laws.

The absence of a net metering law is a real hindrance to those who want to fight global warming. We recently suggested to a very good friend, who tries to lead a green lifestyle in South Carolina, that he put up a wind microturbine and a few solar panels on his Sullivans Island home. (Sanford also has a home on Sullivans Island, a thin barrier island, rising just a few feet above rising sea levels, to the north of Charleston harbor. The wealthy enclave is pictured above.) Our friend said it was not practical since SC has no interconnection option.

Nor can our friend opt, as he could in many other states (including NC, but alas, not Virginia), to purchase "green power" from his local utility, at a premium charge, to encourage the utility to finance development of alternative sources of energy.

South Carolina is blessed with abundant sunshine, and along it's coast and some parts of the state's mountains it also has ample wind resources. SC also has the finest coastline on the Eastern Seaboard, with beautiful wide beaches and the most tidal marshlands of any state. All of which is greatly imperilled by rising sea levels and the threat of more frequent and more intense hurricanes.

If Sanford was serious, he'd try to put together a package of "incentives" (not regulations) and "tax breaks" (not state spending) that would enhance the "rights and freedoms" of South Carolinians by encouraging them to develop the state's largely untapped renewable energy resources. He'd try to make the state a leader--not a laggard--in that arena, which, by the way, holds the promise of new jobs and technologies.

He'd also promote conservation--not land conservation, but energy conservation. To do so, however, he'll need to embrace at least some moderate levels of "regulation," such as requiring that new homes be built to certain green standards. Is that such a big deal? Not really--the state already has numerous regulations and building code provisions applying to construction. Adjusting them to promote conservation is not really "new" regulation unless Sanford simply wants to do away with all the existing requirements.

Sanford is probably correct that if conservatives don't act, the rest of the country and the world will. And he might not like what comes of that.

So, Mark Sanford, if you're serious, try leading by example and action, instead of empty words. You can start by putting a wind turbine and some solar panels on your beachfront farm, and making sure that other South Carolinians can do likewise without interference from the local utility.