Let me say this right off the bat: The environment does not top my list of ideal priorities for the government right now.

It’s more a result of self-interest than anything else. You see, I’m a diabetic, and if conservatives continue to fight stem-cell research, I probably won’t be around in 40 or 50 years when these issues move from concern to crisis. But I do have some worries for my future children, and that is one reason I support spending some money on environmentally safe technology now.

That reason–and several other non-utilitarian ones–are enough for some liberals to support a better environmental plan. They aren’t generally enough for me, and they aren’t enough for most conservatives either. It is always difficult to justify spending money on research and turning down opportunities to drill for oil when so many people in America have difficulty finding work and earning enough for even the bare necessities of heat and electricity. Making such bare necessities more scarce–and thus more costly–is tough to weigh against the undetermined value of keeping certain lands clean and unaltered by humans.

I believe protecting the environment is important. But I believe this for more than simply the intrinsic value of nature or worries about the future; I believe it for reasons that ought to appeal to the pro-business conservatives.

Liberals in general have not done a very good job of selling environmentalism to conservatives. Al Gore is never going to get George Bush or Dick Cheney to hug a tree, but he can appeal to the motives they really care about. Liberals–and Democrats in general–should push for a larger plan satisfying both business-at-any-cost conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders like myself.

The plan would work toward environmental goals with a serious pro-business slant, with massive subsidies for companies to research environmentally safe technology and energy sources. I know we already have this to some extent, but not enough to cause the massive shift necessary to make anyone feel comfortable with the future of the planet and its climate in the next couple hundred years.

We cannot leave this research responsibility to market forces without major government incentives. As is, energy and utility companies see no reason to invest in major environmentally safe research until absolutely necessary–and then it will be too late. Conservatives may shudder at this government interference in the market, but our government has always given incentives for business projects that benefit the public good, from railroads to telephone lines. Serious subsidies for environmental research follow the same pattern–only it may be more important for the long-term.

Such subsidies, much like the railroad and canal subsidies of the 19th century, would create jobs. It might not be as many jobs as the railroad companies created, due to the white-collar nature of the work, but this research and its discoveries could be used as catalysts for businesses in other fields, as well. When this technology does become marketable, even more labor will be necessary to build the infrastructure for it. Thus, conservatives do not have to see environmental research as a losing proposition for their economic interests.

In fact, in the long term, it is one of the safer investments our government could make. Even if the environment were not a factor, fossil fuels will not last forever at current rates–not to mention the fact that countries controlling most of these fuels are not exactly stable. There will be a demand for renewable, efficient energy in the future, and the demand will be at least as great as the demand for oil now. The only question is who will benefit by selling it.

It is easy to fall into gradualism with regard to the environment, but this demands urgency. There may never be a better time to embark on this project of environmental research. The country is not in a total war or arms race that is sapping our economic resources; there is no Great Depression. We need to begin now.

We can invest in environmentally sound, renewable energy and create new fields for employment now, or we can fall behind later. We can become the world’s energy leader in the 21st century, or we can remain stuck in the technology of a former age, dependent upon countries hosting certain groups that want nothing more than to destroy us. And we can begin the necessary reversal of environmental damage now, or we can risk waiting until that damage is irreversible.

This is the kind of argument that wins someone who is normally apathetic about the environment over, someone like me. If liberals concerned about the environment used it more often, it might just win a few conservatives over, too.

Matt Lynch ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English and political science.