Considering myself a conservative, I have noted that those with an environmentalist agenda seem to be of the liberal persuasion. Conservatives in general seem to be a bit skeptical of the environmentalist agenda. So often it seems that this agenda conflicts with conservative principles, especially those dealing with the freedom of commerce.
As much as the environmentalist agenda can be one that seems to chafe conservatives (from the overprotective attempts to squash developments in areas where there is particular “vulnerable” wildlife, to tree-hugging antics) I do not agree with those conservatives who think all attempts to protect the environment should be thrown out the window to protect things like free trade.
There is a balance. Michael Medved, who has a gift for expressing conservatism, has pointed out that conservatives who like to preserve and protect the environment might better be termed “conservationists,” rather than “environmentalists.” Conservationists protect and watch out for the environment, and are good stewards of it. Environmentalists, on the other hand, often engage in wacko tactics to harm people and economies in order to protect some "rare" form of insect or animal life. Many would typically label these "endangered" species as vermin. With respect to environmentalists, that may sound a bit stereotypical, but I think in general the description is accurate.
As a conservative, I think “conservation” is a good thing. When I go to Yellowstone, I prefer that the environment there is maintained and protected, that hikers just don’t go gallivanting around and plugging up the magnificent steam vents with their careless disposal of trash. I also don’t believe that nuclear power industries should be given a blank check when it comes to disposing of nuclear waste, particularly when it comes to the neighborhood sewer. Moreover, government should come down heavily on anyone that pollutes the environment in such a way.
It would be a good thing for us to cut back on pollution in a major way. One way to accomplish this would be the serious pursuit of a car that could run exclusively on salt-water (as it is more abundant than fresh) and on energy gathered from the conservation of braking energy, solar power, and perhaps even wind-power principles. I also have an ulterior motive. I would like to see our nation no longer depending on the energy supplied by corrupt and tyrannical regimes, especially Middle-Eastern ones. Such breakthroughs would benefit the entire world, (and of course, help put some of these thugs in their places).
I also believe that homes powered by "greener" energy sources could be beneficial to our health and revolutionize our lives. In this way, scientific principles could benefit the world. A more green-friendly society could be beneficial economically, as well. We just need to be green in the right ways, not in ways which do more harm than good, or in ways which entirely hamstring our national security and the American economy. It is my sincere hope that we can move to a more responsible energy policy in our society, one which garners respect for the environment, but not at the expense of people. That means a common sense conservationist approach to the environment. –Cal Samuel August
Well said… and wasn’t Teddy Roosevelt a conservationist and a conservative?
“Environmentalist” perfectly reflects the ideology of “nature-first” so many on the extreme left possess. Conserving, after all, indicates some use, sort of like rationing.
Although I find your comments about commerce and caring for the enviroment to be at odds, I do agree with the bulk of your post.
The U.S. does need to be less dependant upon oil. We should be exploring technologies which would make a water car a reality. Not to mention a host of other “green” energy sources.
I say we start allowing our farmers to produce grains and other food stuffs at larger capacities. Shrinking the need for price support policies and start charging these oil rich nations what the market will bare for food stuffs around the globe. If gasoline can jump $.30 a gallon at the drop of a hat, then why can’t the price of grain which requires the same gasoline to produce? It seems to me to be a clearly symbiotic relationship.