Conservatism and the Environment

Reader mode
LordsFire said:
In my experience, they're more likely to be ignored because all the attention is on 'climate change,' than lumped in with it.

That might just be a regional difference, though. I'm in the Great Lakes area, so depleted aquifier isn't a big going concern up here.
Click to expand...
Very likely; in the Rockies and Midwest aquifer depletion discussions are usually tied to debates about climate change by their very nature.
 
A big one for me is the fisheries. I know the fisheries in the Northeast are coming back or are already back in most if not all respects. As far as I'm concerned, this goes back to 'good stewardship.' The US has managed to improve these sort of things a lot. Where the focus needs to land is in places like India and China. They seem to only be scaling up the damage they're doing to their part of the world.
 
Speaker4thesilent said:
A big one for me is the fisheries. I know the fisheries in the Northeast are coming back or are already back in most if not all respects. As far as I'm concerned, this goes back to 'good stewardship.' The US has managed to improve these sort of things a lot. Where the focus needs to land is in places like India and China. They seem to only be scaling up the damage they're doing to their part of the world.
Click to expand...

To our part of the world, as well. Perhaps Congress needs to issue some letters of marque.
 
I'm getting more and more suspicious of climate change and what it means to go green.

Like anyone in a general school you'd get the general points on endangered species, pollution, animal abuse and praises to green peace but after getting older you'd see questionable acts like PETA and Green Peace driving over some very ancient lines in South America that was a natural treasure.

Now in the US there's that GND plan that AOC supports except it is expensive and people can't stop using planes.

Greta some random nobody girl starts calling out adults for not doing better except what does she know about the environment besides the basics?

France had some solar road that didn't work but billions were wasted on it I suspect as a money scheme.
 
Bacle said:
This sums up my feeling about it as well.

There are very definite environmental issues that needs addressing (depleted fisheries, overgrown/unhealthy forests, aquifer depletion, etc.) that have mounds of evidence and wide public support. But they get lumped in with 'climate change', and thus get unnecessarily politicized, when addressing them on their own would not be very controversial.
Click to expand...


It's interesting, but I actually have the opposite view, more or less, despite being the other conservative here who things AGW is real. I think AGW is a real civilisational problem, and so it drives me nuts that people are wasting so much time promoting useless, trivial, silly, enforced externalities like recycling. Why do you care about a river being clean if it's going to dry up from AGW? it's logically inconsistent! So I think we should eliminate environmental impact statements for any project that would result in a net carbon reduction. I think environmentalists are contributing to the problem by refusing to support triage measures, in particular, making electricity generation carbon-zero worldwide by mass nuclearisation. My driving a straight six instead of a Prius is irrelevant, and if I toss my glass bottles into a recycling bin in my township, the CO2 required to truck them 70 miles to the nearest recycling centre makes the world worse off than if they just traveled 5 miles to the landfill. But what matters is coal-fired power plants.
 
Captain-General said:
It's interesting, but I actually have the opposite view, more or less, despite being the other conservative here who things AGW is real. I think AGW is a real civilisational problem, and so it drives me nuts that people are wasting so much time promoting useless, trivial, silly, enforced externalities like recycling. Why do you care about a river being clean if it's going to dry up from AGW? it's logically inconsistent! So I think we should eliminate environmental impact statements for any project that would result in a net carbon reduction. I think environmentalists are contributing to the problem by refusing to support triage measures, in particular, making electricity generation carbon-zero worldwide by mass nuclearisation. My driving a straight six instead of a Prius is irrelevant, and if I toss my glass bottles into a recycling bin in my township, the CO2 required to truck them 70 miles to the nearest recycling centre makes the world worse off than if they just traveled 5 miles to the landfill. But what matters is coal-fired power plants.
Click to expand...
Mass nuclearization would solve a lot of energy production issues, that's a fact.

And I do think AGW exists, to some degree, but how much and who is mostly responsible for it is where the debate is, in my eyes.

A lot of the environmental movement only seems to be focused on 'feel good' measures that that get them accolades by preaching to the choir. Few seem willing to look at things from a practical perspective, and many seem to not understand how to work the logistics of thier plans.
 
Bacle said:
Mass nuclearization would solve a lot of energy production issues, that's a fact.

And I do think AGW exists, to some degree, but how much and who is mostly responsible for it is where the debate is, in my eyes.

A lot of the environmental movement only seems to be focused on 'feel good' measures that that get them accolades by preaching to the choir. Few seem willing to look at things from a practical perspective, and many seem to not understand how to work the logistics of thier plans.
Click to expand...
We need to go back to making new Nuclear plants in this country. Studies have shown that there’s less danger downwind of a nuclear plant in normal operation than their is downwind of a coal plant.

Frankly, with modern technology, we ought to be able to substantially improve on older reactors. More power, better safety, the works.
 
Speaker4thesilent said:
We need to go back to making new Nuclear plants in this country. Studies have shown that there’s less danger downwind of a nuclear plant in normal operation than their is downwind of a coal plant.

Frankly, with modern technology, we ought to be able to substantially improve on older reactors. More power, better safety, the works.
Click to expand...

Make sure to properly dispose of the uranium though

Course, I think even if you do, the media will still go crazy over it
 
PsihoKekec said:
Perhaps in your echo chamber. While conservatism didn't use quasi enviromentalism as political bludgeon like the progresives do, conservation of enviroment has been part of policy for a long time. It's a matter of degrees.
Click to expand...

Can we have some examples at the very least just to make sure?

I imagine they include allowing trash to be used as fuel
 
Comrade Clod said:
Is not the phrases of conservatism and environmentalism something of an oxymoron?
Click to expand...

Most Conservatives that I know believe in taking direct action on the lower level. Clean up your own house, neighborhood, town and state and so on. Work from the ground up. And don't be afraid to use lots of elbow grease to do it.

As a rule we are leery of wide sweeping political induced programs that have had little real impact on the environment. Conservatives are also keen on new technologies to solve old problems like carbon Capture tech, more R&D on renewables to get the cost/benefits ration to something sustainable, Nuclear and so on. We approach this from the ground/up position rather than the top/down enforcement that most on the left prefer.
 
Last edited:
Comrade Clod said:
Is not the phrases of conservatism and environmentalism something of an oxymoron?
Click to expand...
If you define conservatism as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter? Sure. But most conservatives aren't anti-environmentalist, if by environmentalist you mean doing something effective about pollution. That said, their solutions to the problems tend to radically differ from left-wing solutions, and a lot of conservatives don't believe anthropomorphic climate change is a serious threat.
 
I find it incredibly hard to take Anthropogenic Climate Change seriously as a threat.

It doesn't help that it's really easy to find obvious issues with the information most people present as proof... whether that's "no that Polar Bear wasn't there because global warming" or "why are you using data you have to apply three+ different "corrections" to in order to get anything coherent out of it when there's a modern network of data collection?" to "where'd the polar bear body mass info go?" Or even "drought? I mean... every other time the climates been hot it's been wet as well..." or "Wait, you mean your basing all your shit on one tree? ONE tree... really?"

And then there's the hockey stick...

Of course, my basic disagreement is "people can handle significantly higher temperatures than even the most wildly pessimistic projections show thanks to this lovely thing called, TOOLS" and "we dealt with a bigger environmental change with stone tools and fire, end of the Ice Age anyone?"

I don't think it really matters if it's real and will flood massive portions of coastline, humanity has been through worse with less room to maneuver. That I also doubt it's really that big a deal is somewhat beside the point.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top