here we are exploring the libertarian party and the green party, since these are the largest and most recognized third parties in the united states. members from both parties were interviewed on their party’s environmental ideals and how their party handles concepts such as green energy and climate change.

for the libertarian party, we spoke with chairman nicholas sarwark. founded in 1971, the libertarian party is the third largest national party in america, and it is growing. the slogan of the party is “minimum government, maximum freedom,” creating a focus of the party on individual freedoms. the party prefers a laissez-faire, free market economy with the least amount of government interference as possible.

the green party, founded in 1991, is the fourth largest national party in the united states and is a group of “grassroots activists, environmentalists, and advocates for social justice…” according to the green party website. the main focus of the party is on the environment, and is the basis for many of the ideals of the party. although the party does not have the greatest market share, the party has done important work, such as filing for recount of votes in the 2016 presidential election. giving us a rundown on the green party’s environmental policies is media director scott mclarty.

the first aspect of environmental ideals that was discussed was the paris climate accord and how both parties view the removal of the united states from this international treaty.

when asked about the removal, libertarian chairman sarwark did not focus on the substance on the accord but the amount of power that the president has to make these decisions.

“our biggest issue is we would oppose having a president that has that kind of executive power where they are able to set policy for millions of americans without any checks whatsoever,” sarwark said. for a libertarian, it is not truly the substance of an executive order, but that a president can set policy arbitrarily with no legislative or judicial check, no matter how “good” the policy.

on the other hand, neal gale, a green party candidate in pennsylvania, stated in a press release after president trump’s decision to leave the accord, “this is not president trump’s decision to make. the stakes are too high, the consequences too grave.” this statement demonstrates the real platform of the party, which puts the environment as the most important entity — more vital than any other aspect of life. 

the event of the withdrawal of the paris climate accord leads to the concept of how much the federal government should do to combat climate change.

the role of the government, according to sarwark, is to remove the government completely from the equation.

“the first step is removing some of the government interference in the market. starting with things like subsides for oil and gas explorations and the tax credits and expiration subsides that make oil and gas look cheaper than other, potentially renewable, alternatives. (and) not subsidizing things like solar because … solar is automatically better than wind and nuclear.

“the market alone is the best in determining … what is the best technology, what is the technology that is the most cost-effective, and still provide our energy needs” and not the “too smart people in washington,” sarwark said.

the green party, on the other hand, wants an aggressive federal government in tackling the issue of climate change. mclarty discussed the existential threat and what the federal government needs to do.

“we needed federal government to play a leading role in order to defeat the axis powers in world war ii. climate change represents a comparable global threat,” mclarty said.

the green party wants to take control of climate change in not just the federal government, but state and local governments also because they see it as a shared problem between everyone.

finally, the focus was on the role of the individual on the problem of climate change.   

for sarwark, the main problem is market distortions that are causing individuals to not make the best decisions that they can.

“when you take away some of these subsidies you are able to have a clearer picture of what the true cost is, of coal, or of natural gas, or oil, or solar, or nuclear, or wind,” sarwark said.

by having a clearer picture, then an individual is most informed on all forms of energy and can make the most rational decision possible. in essence, an individual will make the best decision when there is not any government inference, according to libertarians.

the green party sees the role of the individual and government as an inverse of the libertarian party. “individual actions to prevent the advance of climate change are generally too small to have much effect. we need to reorganize the economy… to fight global warming,” mclarty said.

the party’s position is that to shift the economy from carbon producing forms of energy to renewable sources, and the federal, state, and local governments have to take control to help enact these changes. through government intervention, the consumer would be able to make the decisions to take more environmentally friendly actions.

so what’s your take: will you remain a steadfast member of the two-party system, or are you ready to break out and join the independents?

***

correction: a previous version of this story misspelled the name of the libertarian party chairman. it has been corrected to nicholas sarwark.

as friedman so thoroughly explained, “green” is not just a temporary movement to stop the earth from getting a few degrees warmer. green is very much a buy one, get ten free approach. going green is much larger than simply cutting 1% of the plastic from water bottles. if we do it right, we can actually curb petrodictatorship and help to spread democracy. we can ensure biodiversity, and we can keep our climate in check. we can encourage businesses to further innovate and be more competitive in a market that includes an exponentially expanding and increasingly interconnected middle class (“flat and crowded”). we preserve the only planet that we have for ourselves and our children, and we maintain america’s role as the superpower of that planet. we create jobs and we create an example in efficiency for the entire world to follow. we don’t need to worry about harvesting coal from the depths of a dangerous mine, nor will we fret when the world’s oil runs out. by beginning to act now, america can lead the carbon-free charge into the future.
my immediate reaction to the book was one of fury; half for the stubbornness of our own policymakers and half for how political these very bipartisan issues have become (they affect all of us!). inaction is one of my biggest pet peeves; i pity the child who complains of heat while sitting next to an air conditioner he’s simply too lazy to turn on. our situation here is the same. the standard use of energy seems to be working fine at the moment simply because the public is blind to its effects. as long as people can turn on their pcs, drive their cars, and work in their offices, life is fine. but friedman’s point stands – “the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.” the stone age ended because of man’s ingenuity and a desire to change his own life for the better. we should not need to run out of oil before america finds a solution that is better. our policymakers, though, have chosen to turn a blind eye to the raw facts of the situation (it appears as though washington would benefit from friedman’s research) in favor of forming party opinions for each. since “liberals” want to act to curb global warming, “conservatives” must therefore find ways to discount its legitimacy. i’m as skeptic as they come, but if there are solutions we can implement to prevent us from possibly melting ourselves and our world, i see no reason not to try them.
i must concede, however, that in the energy-climate era i feel like an ant. as i read a book talking about figures in the billions (of dollars), trillions (of pounds of co2), and hundreds (of years), i feel as though i am completely insignificant. there are no “fifty easy ways to save the earth now”; there is nothing that i can do all by myself that will have any real impact. i am not a government official, nor a lobbyist, nor a ceo of a utility company, nor an engineer. even if half the country doesn’t leave the water running when they brush their teeth, our corporations will continue to leave entire buildings illuminated overnight, and coal will continue to power most of our “dumb” utilities.
the book just begs someone to pass it along to a member of congress or someone with actual influence; the average american is sadly overwhelmed. i am a regular college student looking to study business. i know mr. friedman suggested i do my part (as all those get-green-quick guides suggest), but then i’m just sipping a cocktail at the green party, not fueling the green revolution.
how can a student studying business do anything about this? the fact that just about anyone can help is the beauty of greening america. as a business major, i could financially advise developing alternative energy companies. i could become a venture capitalist who funded green startups. with such necessary innovations coming down the line, investing in a stable green-engineering company might be about the safest financial bet in this down economy. i could go on to get my mba, and from a higher position in a company, could reform its practices to be an example in efficiency. i could help to start up a solar power company, much like first solar, and reap the benefits of their eight-hundred-percent production boom. first solar’s success was primarily thanks to germany; i think we need to have the same economic incentives in america. and who could make a better case for that than a bunch of business majors?
the economist in me is all too scared of china’s growth as well. a country with a population of over one billion with a government that obligates them to work together is without a doubt a force to be reckoned with, especially when that force is responsible for expansion and development at the rate china is. the facts friedman presented blow me away; the amount of energy china uses, and the rate at which it needs generate more dirty energy to keep up with demand is staggering. but the chinese government doesn’t grant choice the way ours does, and as friedman mentioned in “china for a day (but not for two)”, its people are quick to change their ways when the government mandates it. massive amounts of cheap labor and a very strong gdp-based approach to communism have made china the economic powerhouse it is today, and america already has entirely too much debt vested in it. should china be able to develop a green approach to their massive energy needs (as they already have begun to do), the american economy will be left in their wake. an america that cannot support itself economically or environmentally is not an america i want to be a part of. during the american revolution, both of the great wars, and the space race, it was american ingenuity and the ability of our nation to act as one that resulted in our successes. if green stays a political issue, the divide will result in a national tragedy. the human race is now running from a bear, and china is sprinting ahead while we stop for a breather.
yes, i am a conservative environmentalist who wants smaller government, but at the same time who wishes there was more government regulation to aid in greening america. i am a petrolhead, a young man with a lust for acceleration and the internal combustion engine, but also someone who finds the idea of a hydrogen car quite interesting. i feel small and insignificant, but at the same time, charged enough to actually do something about the problem. it is conflict like this, amidst many others (interests of big-business utilities, big oil, foreign relations, and gdp to name a few), that are largely responsible for the lack of forward direction when it comes to greening america for the future. but there is just something so inspiring about being a real superpower in the future, unafraid of china and cut loose from the middle east’s oily strings. once again america could take its place as the world’s greatest country, respected instead of hated.
before reading hot, flat, and crowded, i didn’t care about how electrons got to my house, or just how many degrees warmer the earth is. now, i am a conscientious young citizen ready to take a chance and give this green thing a whirl. to those whom this book “depressed” more than anything else, i invite you to feel just as empowered and angry as i do. you people at starbucks can keep your macbooks and priuses and enjoy the eco-chic party until last call. i, on the other hand, want to do something about this. i am ready to abandon the party lines and the political labels, and i think it’s about time washington does the same.
oh, mr. friedman… i hope you print your books on recycled paper.