Republicans are more skeptical of the environmentalist agenda. Democrats often accept it as an article of faith (part 3 of 6)

[For the first entry in this series, and pointers to the five follow-up posts, go here.]

Matt Dernoga writes approvingly of a long list of concepts and programs touted by Martin O’Malley such as “clean energy jobs” and Smart Growth.

In my view, the concept of clean energy jobs (a.k.a. “green jobs”) is useful to Democratic speechwriters and hardly anyone else. PERC makes this case convincingly in its pamphlet The 7 myths about green jobs. If anyone can poke holes in their work, I’d love to hear about it.

As for Smart Growth, I’ve found that when you question these folks about their programs, they talk hazily about fighting “sprawl.” It soon becomes clear that they can’t define sprawl except to say that they know it when they see it. Nor are they clear about the practical details of their “smart” solutions.

So they can’t explain, but they sure do believe.

Which is why people like Michael Crichton, Joel Garreau and Alfonzo Rachel keep talking about “environmentalism as religion.”

Republicans are right to be skeptical. Environmental policy should be based on facts, not faith.