Originally I was going to reply in the thread this quote came from; however, I quickly realized this discussion would be well outside the scope and purpose of that thread for any lengthy discussion, and so instead decided to spin up a new thread to discuss this idea.
So, while I do not disagree that at it's core Environmentalism and the Republicans and even Conservatives can coexist, I have a lot of trouble seeing how the current modern Environmental movement can be reconciled with the Republican coalition due to many of their ideas.
To begin with the present Environmental movement is filled with Misanthropy. There's a massive underlying hatred of humanity, seeing humanity as a "disease" on the planet, etc. that undergirds large swaths of the modern Environmental movement. This directly conflicts with the ideals of both Republicans in general and Conservatives more specifically and leads to many of the other conflicting point I see as standing in the way of any workable alliance between the Environmentalists and the Right.
But first, let me be clear, I think there's a strong case to be made for Conservatives working for what would be termed "green" goals and broader Environmental protections. However, I think that the methods are as important, if not more important, than the goals, and that the methods that Conservatives would take to build a better environment do not mesh with how the modern Environmental movement wants to do things.
This Misanthropy underlies so many of the Environmental movement's actions that it's hard to disentangle it. For instance, there is a constant focus on reducing power and resource use by the American public, in effect, demanding that Americans lower their standards of living in order to be sustainable. Now, perhaps, for some areas this is absolutely necessary due to limited resources and we should be finding ways to reduce or recycle certain things*, but one area this isn't is Power. Plentiful, carbon free power is a solved problem, but much of the Environmental movement doesn't want to embrace the solution because it means humans can continue to expand and thrive.
Another area this misanthropy adds to is in their push for Urbanism and attempts to destroy suburbs. While there is other environmental grounds for this other than misanthropy, this urbanism is an area that the Republicans and Conservatives, being oriented towards rural and suburban living, come into direct systemic conflict. Forcing Urbanism, as many Environmentalists seek to do, flies both in the face of freedom of choice, as well as the Right's focus on more traditional living, and despite what many seem to think, Urban living is not the norm for humans nor has it been throughout history. Rather rural living has and the suburban explosion of the mid twentieth century is a reflection that humans do no like living in dense urban areas and prefer having more greenspace and their own territory. Urbanism also decreases intergenerational wealth and living standards, as in Urban areas people do not own their own homes and property.
Basically, in order for there to be a reconciliation between the Right and Environmentalism the Environmentalists would have to give up on major parts of their ideals. They would have to refocus on how they address power and go full in on supporting Nuclear energy and cheap, plentiful electricity. They would have to give up Urbanism and acknowledge that human flourishing should be the primary goal, rather than be seen as a negative. These are not areas the Right can compromise on, as they are core to how the world should be ordered. There are, perhaps, some areas of compromise that can be drawn, for instance, if they are met partway. In example, reducing support for coal mining and carbon based electricity production in return for the Environmentalists fully embracing Nuclear. But at the end of the day I have trouble seeing how the Environmental movement, in its present form and with it's present goal and strategy, heavily based on central regulation and control, can fit in with a Right coalition that opposed it both in method (being for less central regulation and control) and ideals (the aforementioned Misanthropy).
----------------
* IE recycling metals is generally a good idea, ESPECIALLY aluminum**. But a lot of other things recycling is just a feel good measure and the processes to "recycle" those goods just end doing jack shit to actually help (IE recycling paper***).
** For those that don't know, it takes more raw energy to refine mined aluminum than it takes to recycle a similar amount of aluminum. Thus it is one of the few recycling processes where recycling is always cheaper than new production and thus is always profitable to pursue.
** Paper is made primarily from a farmed, renewable resource, it breaks down very quickly in landfills or even just outside, and the majority of paper breaks down harmlessly. Meanwhile "recycling" takes very harsh chemical treatments (often more chemical treatments than making paper from scratch) and results in lower quality product than freshly made. It's a scam... always been a scam, and always will be a scam...
