In the vice-presidential debate, J.D. Vance addressed the highly polarizing issue of climate change. When prompted, he cautiously acknowledged the scientific consensus that carbon emissions contribute to climate change, albeit in a way that suggested skepticism: “Let’s just say that’s true, just for the sake of argument, so we’re not arguing about weird science.” While this response might seem evasive to some, it speaks to the core of a broader critique on how climate change is framed and the impact of policy responses on economic freedom and sovereignty.

The Real Debate: Science or Policy?

At the heart of Vance’s statement is a critical question that often gets overshadowed by the intensity of climate discussions: Should the science around carbon emissions and climate change automatically dictate policy responses that drastically alter economies and livelihoods? The issue is not whether the climate is changing, but how to address it without sacrificing national interests, economic growth, and individual freedoms.

The left often insists that the science is “settled” on climate change and carbon emissions. However, science is rarely static, and while we can agree that carbon emissions have an effect, there remains a valid debate about the scale of that effect and the solutions being proposed. From a Christian perspective, there is a moral imperative to care for creation, but also a moral obligation to ensure that policy responses do not harm the most vulnerable, particularly the working class and industries that provide livelihoods to millions of Americans.

Is the U.S. Really Leading the World in Clean Energy?

Vance’s statement that the U.S. has “the cleanest economy in the entire world” sparked criticism, with some pointing to data showing that America’s carbon intensity is “middling.” Critics argue that the U.S. falls behind Western Europe and parts of Africa when it comes to CO2 emissions per unit of economic output. However, this criticism misses a key point. America’s economy is both massive and diverse, encompassing energy-intensive industries that are critical to global supply chains, unlike many European nations that have offshored their emissions to developing countries.

What Vance seems to be highlighting is that the U.S. is a leader in innovation and technological advancements aimed at reducing emissions while still fostering economic growth. America has made significant strides in energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, and cleaner fossil fuel production methods. The left rarely acknowledges the importance of these innovations, instead focusing on policies that would cripple industries without providing viable alternatives for American workers.

Trump’s Legacy on Environmental Protection

Vance also tied his comments to the Trump administration’s stance on environmental issues, emphasizing clean air and water. It’s true that under Trump, some 100 environmental regulations were rolled back, leading to accusations that his administration was anti-environment. However, a deeper examination reveals that many of these regulations were excessive, burdensome, or economically harmful without delivering measurable environmental benefits.

A key conservative principle is the belief that government overreach stifles innovation and economic prosperity. The Trump administration’s rollbacks were, in many cases, aimed at removing regulations that were harming industries like agriculture, energy, and manufacturing—industries that are vital to middle America. Supporting clean air and water does not require embracing every regulatory measure proposed by bureaucrats in Washington, especially when those measures disproportionately affect rural communities and small businesses.

A Balanced Approach to Stewardship

Stewardship of the environment is not about adopting radical Green New Deal-style policies but about finding a balanced approach that protects both the environment and the economy. Vance’s comments, though imperfectly phrased, reflect a desire to engage with the issue of climate change while pushing back against alarmism that undermines national sovereignty and economic freedom.

As Christians, we are called to be stewards of God’s creation. This means protecting the environment, but it also means protecting people’s ability to provide for their families. Energy independence, job security, and a strong economy are all part of that stewardship. America’s role as a global leader should not be measured solely by carbon intensity, but by how well we care for both the land and the people who live on it.

In conclusion, the debate over climate change must move beyond simplistic slogans and rigid science narratives. Instead, we must engage in thoughtful discussions about the best way to care for our planet while maintaining the freedoms and opportunities that make America strong. Vance’s comments are a reminder that the conservative movement can offer a nuanced, responsible approach to environmental issues—one that prioritizes innovation, economic growth, and human flourishing alongside environmental care.