This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Earlier in February, the Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt to head the EPA on a largely party line vote. Both Utah senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, voted for his confirmation. Conventional political wisdom suggests this was unsurprising. But should it be?

Many Republicans, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lindsay Graham, Hank Paulson and several Republican House members, including Utah's Mia Love, publicly support taking action on climate change. But more need to take up the mantle. In our increasingly polarized world, the messenger has in no small part become the message.

We the authors — one conservative, one liberal — believe conservatives celebrating Pruitt's confirmation and President Trump's recent slew of executive orders should consider putting away the champagne. While we respectfully disagree as friends on many issues, we agree that climate change is a bipartisan issue requiring bipartisan solutions. We also agree that the specifics of how to best solve it is not answered conclusively; it is a question on which we invite vigorous research and debate.

But we firmly agree that Pruitt's appointment, and the administration's unflagging disdain for the agency and scientific consensus, is not merely unproductive. It is dangerous and irresponsible. Politically, his appointment was a finger in the eye of coastal "elites." Practically, it was a finger in the eye of all of us.

The cruel irony is that voters living in rural areas and red states — whose senators almost categorically voted for Pruitt — will be the most affected by climate change in the near future. Accordingly, we argue Republicans should rethink their party line.

Take farmers, for instance. Rural voters from California's San Joaquin Valley to Kansas voted overwhelmingly Republican this past election. Talk to them about climate change and chances are they'll roll their eyes. But ask about how to deal with groundwater shortages or prolonged droughts, and you'll have their attention.

For some farmers, their lived experiences have not yet converged with language of scientists and policymakers, in part because the latter have often struggled to communicate effectively. But the day will come when experience, science and practical reality meet.

Scientists expect climate change will continue to disturb future precipitation cycles with increasing volatility, meaning we can forget the farmer's almanac — the future is flood or famine.

Similarly, conservative Christian voters, another core GOP constituency, who haven't "awakened" to the religious ramifications of climate change, perhaps soon will.

We could name the numerous faith groups and other networks who have partnered with nonprofits to take up this issue, but we prefer making the point with a simple juxtaposition. Just compare:

"O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures … May the glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in his works," with "Current rates of extinction are about 1,000 times the likely background rate."

The first quote is from Psalms 104; the second comes from a 2014 article published in Science by Dr. Stuart Pimm and several other leading scientists studying biodiversity. Put together, they read nothing short of a sobering tragedy. Understanding that carbon dioxide acidifies the oceans and destabilizes habitats by inducing climatic volatility should give pause to those who take seriously their religious obligation to steward the Earth.

What about Wall Street Republicans who care about dollars and cents? Here, the GOP could be out front, too, as climate change left unmitigated poses an existential threat to our economy, whereas doing something about it presents an incredible business opportunity.

Putting aside the tremendous growth in the clean tech sector, nature alone is worth trillions of dollars globally for its "ecosystems services," as economists dub it. These "services" include water filtration from wetlands and forests, fish in our oceans, breathable air and predictable rain, temperature and pollination for making food. Just one insect, like the European honeybee, pollinates billions — that's billions, with a 'b' — of dollars worth of agriculture across the United States.

And yet, unsustainable consumption and pollution is depleting our planet and resources, upon which individuals and society depend. Our present course threatens the traditional way of life conservatives advocate, as much as or more than government encroachment or cultural changes.

So to Sens. Lee and Hatch and fellow Utah Republicans, we ask you: What message is more conservative than reverence for the Earth? What message could be more important?

Byron Ruby is a student at Harvard Law School, where he served as the 2015-2016 president of the Harvard Environmental Law Society. He is a joint master's candidate with Yale's School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Neil Longo is a graduate of Brigham Young University in political science and, after graduation, interned for the Judiciary Committee staff of Sen. Orrin Hatch. He has been published in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" and is now the regional director for the American West at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.