4
89

[–] cyclops1771 4 points 89 points (+93|-4) ago 

First, because "conserving the environment" has nothing to do with the political movement of "environmentalism." Environmentalism is simply eco-socialism. It uses everyone's love/enjoyment of pristine nature and ties it directly to political power and control of individual freedom and actions.

People on the right don't litter, don't pollute, hate companies that intentionally pollute, and generally keep their own areas well maintained. IN addition, the people on the right have never fought against clean air, clean water, etc. Never. Not once.

They have argued against imposing industry crushing regulations that harm actually human families or retard progress or technologies.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

2
27

[–] Caesarkid1 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago 

Sure they do. You won't see it on prime time unless it can be slanted to make the right wing person look like they hate nature though.

3
13

[–] cyclops1771 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago 

Because people are not vocal about things that should just BE already.

HEY EVERYONE!! LOOK AT ME! I TIED MY OWN SHOELACES TODAY! I'M BEING VOCAL ABOUT MY GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS!

That's why.

Besides, logic does not work on true believers, so there really isn't a point.

0
0

[–] YouveSeenTheButcher ago 

Why hasn't the right been vocal about it?

Actions speak louder than words.

1
-1

[–] weezkitty 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Corporate money. Unfortunately a lot of "right wing" politicians have been bought out by coal and oil companies

0
2

[–] bb22 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Actually the first environmentalists in the US were Southern farmers who took the Bible's instruction to be a good steward of the land very seriously.

0
2

[–] jthun2 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

People on the right used to oppose mass immigration due to its environmental impacts.

0
0

[–] Deplorable_J_Covfefe ago 

They still should, but the people who lend money to build houses for unwanted immigrants will be the first to piss and moan.

7
-1

[–] curbstompfun 7 points -1 points (+6|-7) ago  (edited ago)

You're a fucking idiot. The reason the leftards are up in arms is because they view regulations as a way to protect the environment. But they're taking everything to the extreme and neglecting the people first who are being squeezed by said regulations. For example, there are many families who depend on the income from coal miners. But coal pollutes the air so of course the leftards want to regulate this type of pollution which will obviously affect the incomes of coal miners. So you have to weigh the cost of having a job vs. the cost of damaging the environment. Same goes for cars. We can regulate to a certain extent until we start affecting auto workers. There's always a cost/benefit to regulation. Same goes for the economy. Obviously, if we have zero regulations in place, this will help the flow of money, but the downside is that the top competitors will form monopolies (Amazon, facebook, apple, google, etc.) and Wall Street will destabilize the world economy by gambling with other people's money.

It's not just as simple as saying one group is for the environment and one group is against it. Conservatives love a good hike in nature just like the libtards, but they also recognize the human capital that the libtards aren't taking into consideration in their quest to turn the earth into a hippie paradise. The system of competition we have set up already puts every element of the economy in danger, but the effects are long term so it's not easy to spot unless you understand the law of Cause & Effect.

0
3

[–] Schreiber 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

But coal pollutes the air so of course the leftards want to regulate this type of pollution which will obviously affect the incomes of coal miners

Leftist consist of rich snob virtue signaling in their gated mansion and jobless lazy thugs. Wtf do they know about working in the mine?

1
23

[–] Romanium 1 point 23 points (+24|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The left has only made environmentalism an issue and they are doing it for personal gain (carbon taxes, plastic straw bans, etc)

That's it, the left has tarnished the concept of environmentalism in the United States by using it as justification for more federal control over everything (see water rights in western states). They use this control to enrich themselves and their friends in often failing endeavors.

Then you have the extreme environmentalists that want the land to basically exist in state as if humans were not present, which not only isn't feasible but hasn't been the case for tens of thousands of years anyhow. The environment of natives for instance was one where the human population absolutely influenced the environment. If that weren't the case we'd have a bunch more giant mammals in North America.

I'm conservative and am on board for environmentalism, but not the kind the left preaches. It must consider the relationship between the environment and the people to be a symbiotic one, not an adversarial one. Within that scope the freedom to manage your land must also be maintained with the goal that individuals pursue being good stewards of their land as it is in both their and the general interest.

Heavy handed government with centralized control of all water supplies and forcing land use to fit an environmental model that hasn't actually existed for 10,000 years is something I'll never be on board with.

1
3

[–] slwsnowman40 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Then you have the extreme environmentalists that want the land to basically exist in state as if humans were not present, which not only isn't feasible but hasn't been the case for tens of thousands of years anyhow.

And to see what that results in, just look at the fires in Commiefornia.

0
20

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The right are conservationists. Ranchers, farmers, and outdoorsmen like people who go camping hunting and fishing tend to be far more conservative than the general public. If you think that they are not then you're spending too much time listening to leftist propaganda. Marxists use "protecting the environment" as an excuse to oppose development and industrialization in all its forms.

Let's say a company wants to open a mine and the environmental impact statement says that the mine will require development of 1000 acre of land in a state forest and will create risk of contamination to 50,000 acres of land if this or that happens. Conservatives will say "OK if you want to proceed with the mine you have to buy 2500 acres of similar land nearby and put it into permanent preservation so that the mine doesn't damage the ecology of the area, and you will have to set up a fund of x # of dollars to pay for cleanup efforts as insurance against that risk of contamination, and also a fund of x # of dollars to pay for restoration of the mined area when mining activities are completed." Environmentalists will just use the impact study as an excuse to say "No" and will cry and scream in response to any efforts to find a way to make it work while protecting the public's interests.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I can't event tell if you're in support of what you quoted or in opposition to it.

The government has programs meant to preserve land in certain areas in order to achieve conservationist goals preserving the ecology of an area and animal habitat. The government does not have power over all things everywhere, but the government can put conditions on a mining permit to address the general public's concerns regarding a project.

These things all come up as a part of the permitting process. They typically do not have a codified formula for these things that says "If the report says Y then you have to do Z", the legislation will say that an environmental impact study has to be done as part of the permitting process. The people that control the permit then determine whether to grant a permit based on the results of the study. Usually they will work out some kinds of conditions to granting the permit like the ones I've outlined above. Then the mining company works out the costs of complying with those permits to determine whether it is cost effective for them to proceed with the project.

Environmentalists use the permitting process to kill projects by putting cost prohibitive demands on a mining company. A conservationists conditions of 2500 acres of land in preservation trust and x dollars of funds in a clean-up and restoration trust would not be so expensive as to prevent the project from proceeding, an environmentalist might say that the mining company has to buy all 50,000 acres that would be potentially affected by contamination t put in a land preservation trust and to create a clean-up and restoration fund that is 100 times as large as the one that the conservationist is requesting.

0
1

[–] Justwhiteofcenter 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You win the retard argument for the day.

Fun excercise: who created national parks? Dem or repub?

0
2

[–] JefftheBaptist 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is actually it. The Right is for responsible land use. The left is basically for land non-use.

0
0

[–] Schreiber ago 

Leftist environmentalist is like that degenerate feminist who fuck trees.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] ShitPostMcGee 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It's right there in the name conservative what more do you want from them

0
0

[–] Schreiber ago  (edited ago)

TFW when you know some of those "non-profit" foundation money goes to anti-white cause and the whole environmentalism is just a front to fool retards because "conserving nature" sounds and feel good.

0
9

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

All the blue collar jobs like logging and fishing are held by conservatives.

Maybe you have a skewed idea of what environmentalism is.

Lots more conservatives hunting, for example. Predatory pigs are no joke, but liberals have no idea about that....

0
4

[–] 14372971? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Predatory pigs are no joke, but liberals have no idea about that....

Predatory pig is an accurate description for a lot of them.

0
8

[–] ilikeskittles 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm a firm believer in the fact that you don't foul your own nest. But most all environmental groups are filled with mentally ill folks that are certifiable batshit nuts.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] ilikeskittles 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'm all for sensible environmental regulation. But basically making it impossible to generate energy with coal, when coal is one of our most abundant resources make no sense. The guy in ?WY? that built a pond on his land to water his cattle? EPA went after him for millions of dollars, it's just stupid. Things like that bother me.

0
7

[–] Mike_Foster 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Your thinking of the terms liberal and conservative all wrong my friend.

Liberal = I like it when the government applies its authority liberally to my life.

Conservative = I like a conservative amount of government interference in my life.

Make sense?

[–] [deleted] 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] dangerous_ai 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I have encountered some rural folk in Conservative Town, USA who are the most rabid conservationists. Recycling keeps trash out of the dump, thus reducing their trash costs. They have a keen sense of predator / prey balance, so wildlife management makes sense to them. Taking care of their local environment is important, because many of them grow some of their own food or have farming families. I have met very few conservative-minded people who have a disinterest in the environment. Perhaps some young idiots like to de-tune their diesel truck a little and "roll coal" (big clouds of black smoke), but that's usually the minority. Maybe your premise of "the right doesn't seem to have an interest..." could be something else, like conservatives are less likely to mobilize and be vocal about many things, because they are more on the individualism side of the spectrum vs collectivism? Just a thought.

[–] [deleted] 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] 14371809? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

HH brother

load more comments ▼ (65 remaining)