NationStates Jolt Archive

This common idea doesn't make any sense at all. Environmental protection concerns us all, because the state of the environment affects everyone on Earth. It seems that these days only a few left-wing politicians actually bring up this important issue. This is peculiar, because it is one of the most important issues of our time.

Politicians seem mostly interested in looking out for big business. I think it is worth sacrificing a small part of the economy in order to do protect the environment. It will save us a lot in the long run.

What do you think?

I think it's because right-wing nut-job radio hosts have cast the environmental movement in that light. Truth is, some of the most conservative people I've ever known have been the biggest fighters for the environment because they're sportsmen--hunters and fishermen. They see the destruction of the environment more clearly than most do because they spend a lot of their spare time in the wilderness, and they know that in order to preserve the wilderness, it needs to be treated with care and handled responsibly.

Most Republicans are more concerned about their oil company stocks than whether their great-grandkids choke on sooty air. *shrug* Gotta have your priorities, I guess.

I think it's because right-wing nut-job radio hosts have cast the environmental movement in that light. Truth is, some of the most conservative people I've ever known have been the biggest fighters for the environment because they're sportsmen--hunters and fishermen. They see the destruction of the environment more clearly than most do because they spend a lot of their spare time in the wilderness, and they know that in order to preserve the wilderness, it needs to be treated with care and handled responsibly.

AN excellent point. Sportsmen are some of the biggest pro-environment people you could meet. In a very pragmatic, less tree-huggy kind of way.

Two of the biggest environmental activists are- get this- the NRA and the Sierra Club. Who'd have thunk?

Its not because the Conservatives in various forms of media try to portray the environmentalist movement as a left-wing thing, its the fact that the most outspoken groups (Environmental terrorists, Greenpeace, etc.) tend to be far-left, and they get the most news coverage from everyone right or left.

Its not because the Conservatives in various forms of media try to portray the environmentalist movement as a left-wing thing, its the fact that the most outspoken groups (Environmental terrorists, Greenpeace, etc.) tend to be far-left, and they get the most news coverage from everyone right or left.Yeah--and I suppose that having Rush Limbaugh scream everyday about "environmental wackos" (his wirds, not mine) in combination with liberals has absolutely nothing to do with it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

AN excellent point. Sportsmen are some of the biggest pro-environment people you could meet. In a very pragmatic, less tree-huggy kind of way.
and they are less likely to move on to the next big issue. they need to protect the wilderness they use now and are hoping to use with their children and grandchildren

Republicans (not all, but many) like Reagan and Bush like big business and money and prefer to be pro-business rather than enforce environmental regulations or restrict resources. Moderates are better, but because A) they tend to be more pragmatic and near term folks and B) they don't have as much of an ideological foundation in other stuff, they tend to focus more on economic issues, which, again, often rival environmental action. So that leaves the lefties, who are more socialist and less concerned with cash in general, to lead the charge. I would really like it if those other guys realized how big of a fucking hole we've dug ourselves into and treated environmental issues as a pressing concern (like security and economics) rather than an extra for when it's convenient.

Yeah--and I suppose that having Rush Limbaugh scream everyday about "environmental wackos" (his wirds, not mine) in combination with liberals has absolutely nothing to do with it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
you miss spelled his name dude its Limball

Well it's a matter of perspectives.

"I am not an anti-environmentalist but I belive a guy should be able to make a living over a couple lizards"

Does that sound right wing or left wing?

;)

I believe in moderate environmentalism: recycling, not running water while you're brushing your teeth, turning off the light when you leave the room, not littering, picking up trash, reforestation, etc. However, I greatly fear the pantheism espoused by radicals like Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Maurice Strong, etc.

The philosophical justifications of the environmental movement are similar to those that justify left wing ideologies. The importance of equality for instance is integral to both environmentalism and socialism.

I do not believe that environmental issues are exclusively left-wing, but I can see how people think this. The left wing is usually where the environmental advocacy comes from. Environmental protection is advocated by the union lobby, environmental lobby, and every other Liberal lobby. There's even an eco-feminist lobby. However, I'll never live to see an environmental gun lobby.

bump

I agree. Time for some tree-hugging, people!

stupid government

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html

This common idea doesn't make any sense at all. Environmental protection concerns us all, because the state of the environment affects everyone on Earth. It seems that these days only a few left-wing politicians actually bring up this important issue. This is peculiar, because it is one of the most important issues of our time.

Politicians seem mostly interested in looking out for big business. I think it is worth sacrificing a small part of the economy in order to do protect the environment. It will save us a lot in the long run.

What do you think?
Why does anyone think that anything is exclusively a concern of anyone?

Evironmental issues are important to many Republicans, Im sure.
Thier President however, does not share thier concern.

No other President in history has a worse record environmentally, than Bush.

Yeah--and I suppose that having Rush Limbaugh scream everyday about "environmental wackos" (his wirds, not mine) in combination with liberals has absolutely nothing to do with it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Well, I was called an "environmental wacko", and a heathen to boot:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346924&page=4&pp=15

I guess if you care about the environment people will put labels on you?

In Limbaugh's case, all you have to do is suggest that there are perhaps considerations other than that of profitability to be taken into account when making a business decision in order to be considered a wacko. I know--Limbaugh's a tool, but he's an influential tool, which is scary when you think about it.

However, I greatly fear the pantheism espoused by radicals like Al Gore,
Al Gore is hardly a radical, he's a moderate conservative.

stupid government

http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html
This is an excellent link. Everyone read it now. How to really help the environment through the free market. For an expansion on this theme try here.

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty12.asp

Don't bother. If you read one libertarian article, you've read them all. No matter what the problem is, it's always the government's fault.

The article boils down to: "People take care of their property, so if you sell off everything to the corporations, they'll take care of it."

Yes, of course they'll "take care" of it. But if you "privatize" a forest, there's no guarantee that the new owner is going to want a forest on that land. Maybe he'll "take care" of it by turning it into a parking lot. And you can't stop him, say the libertarians, because property is holy and sacred.

See, there is one fundamental problem with "market environmentalism": There is no profit to be made by PRESERVING the environment.

How do you protect the environment? By not touching it. But if you don't touch it, how can you turn a profit from it?

Private corporations have no incentive to preserve the environment. A logging company won't want to completely devastate the forests it owns, of course, but it won't preserve them either. It will turn them into logging fields, and you can bet that all the old growth will be wiped out in no time. And since the logging company is only interested in wood, it won't mind if the forest animals get slaughtered, either.

There's a simple reason why only leftists are environmentalists: Because only left-wing policies and government intervention can protect the environment.

As far as the right-wing is concerned, the environment is only a resource to be exploited.

Just to point out, Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, and several othe hunting groups (http://www.dto.com/conservation_links.jsp) have a serious stake in preserving wildlife habitat. I have been led to believe that many hunting groups actually provide more funding for conservation than non-hunting groups. I could be absolutely wrong there, but I doubt it. Who stands to profit more from conservation: the hunter who uses the wilds regularly or the city bound "environmentalist"? (Not to tar all environmentalists with the city boy brush, but I have met way to many city boy anti-hunting types.)

Like I said, resources to be exploited. Of course hunters don't want to run out of things to hunt... But keeping wild species alive for the purpose of hunting doesn't look like a good method for conservation...

Regardless of what the true facts behind it are, getting back to the main point of the topic, the REASON people THINK environmental protection is exclusively a left-wing concern is that generally, if you take 100 leftists and 100 right-wings, you will find there are MANY more leftists who care about environment protection (probably 100% of them actually) than the right-wings (probably closer to 40-50%, although I'm just guessing these numbers).

Part of the reason is, the people on the religious right (you aren't going to hear of many religious lefts) will support conservative ideals, except the environment won't really receive any attention from them. As for the rest of us right-wingers, we DO care about the environment.

I'd consider myself extreme right, but I am still very strongly in favor of environmental protection. Even if companies have to be hurt a bit NOW to do it, they will benefit in the long run, and that's what conservatism is about, the long run :)

Al Gore is hardly a radical, he's a moderate conservative.
I didn't know Pittsburgh was so out of touch with reality.

I'm so glad to see this topic. It's frustrating to see all environmental campaigners tarred with the 'anti-capitalist' brush. It's an issue that ought to be bigger than politics and economics. It's in many businesses' interests to support pro-environment measures. For example, the energy industry stands to make a fortune out of environmental measures derived from Kyoto and carbon trading. They just need to be shown this. It might sound strange coming from a self-proclaimed lefty, but I think Heinlein was right:

"Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage." {thanks, Daistallia}

Govts and NGOs need to show the business world how they can profit from preserving the environment and combating global warming. If anyone would like the detail, I'll try and get them; I live with an environmental consultant who specialises in this field.

Oh, yeah - Gore, a radical? Hahahaha. No.

On the subject of environmental issues and economics, did anyone else read this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1279603,00.html) today? It's a bit of a downer, I must say.

"Writing in the Daily Mail, Bellamy asserted that "the link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth". Like almost all the climate change deniers, he based his claim on a petition produced in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and "signed by over 18,000 scientists". Had Bellamy studied the signatories, he would have discovered that the "scientists" included Ginger Spice and the cast of MASH."

The temptation to crow triumphantly is almost overwhelming. Ginger bleedin' Spice?

It gets better (or worse):

"The Oregon Institute is run by a fundamentalist Christian called Arthur Robinson. Its petition was attached to what purported to be a scientific paper, printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, the paper had not been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal. Anyone could sign the petition, and anyone did: only a handful of the signatories are experts in climatology, and quite a few of them appear to have believed that they were signing a genuine paper. And yet, six years later, this petition is still being wheeled out to suggest that climatologists say global warming isn't happening."

The essence of conservatism is to conserve, no :confused: ? So, conservatives should be in favor of preserving and conserving our environment!

Conservatives should realise that there are no jobs, profit, or business on a dead planet :headbang: !

simple. When you see people on TV fighting for the environment they fall into 2 catergories. Hippies (people who have not showered since the 60's) or students (who have not showered since leaving home).
Who are the ones cutting down the forests and making all those cute fuzzy animals homeless, BIG BUSINESS (they then go and shoot the cute fuzzy animals, oh no!).

Always made me laugh. IT'S THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLE. They only have to make the contious effort to buy products that are made from recycle products. Remember the market economy? anyone?

simple. When you see people on TV fighting for the environment they fall into 2 catergories. Hippies (people who have not showered since the 60's) or students (who have not showered since leaving home).
Who are the ones cutting down the forests and making all those cute fuzzy animals homeless, BIG BUSINESS (they then go and shoot the cute fuzzy animals, oh no!).

Always made me laugh. IT'S THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLE. They only have to make the contious effort to buy products that are made from recycle products. Remember the market economy? anyone?
The market isn't responsive enough to deal with the problems faced on the necessary timescale.

This goes beyond economics and the market. Which, incidentally, ain't. feckin'. infallible.

In Germany there are some right wing greens. These people are also into neo-Germanic paganism, occultism and mysticism and they are an offshoot of nazi movements.

In Belgium, there may very well be green right movements as well.

I bet in the U.S. there are some right wing christian fundamentalist politicians who probably think that the Earth is God's gift to man so we can do with it whatever we want. Or...That God will keep everything running. Or that the Rapture will take care of everything.

environmentalism is not really right or left wing exept exteme environmentalism. the truely radical doomsday prophets seem to also be examples for the far left from what I have seen.

The market isn't responsive enough to deal with the problems faced on the necessary timescale.

This goes beyond economics and the market. Which, incidentally, ain't. feckin'. infallible.

well its worked in western europe.
and if people want it and say they want recycled products and such, enough businesses will try it

well its worked in western europe.
and if people want it and say they want recycled products and such, enough businesses will try it
It has taken supranational governmental non-market agencies to encourage these changes. And they ain't enough. Recycling is the tip of a whacking great iceberg.

I'd argue that western Europe has a very long way to go.

Don't bother. If you read one libertarian article, you've read them all. No matter what the problem is, it's always the government's fault.

The article boils down to: "People take care of their property, so if you sell off everything to the corporations, they'll take care of it."

Yes, of course they'll "take care" of it. But if you "privatize" a forest, there's no guarantee that the new owner is going to want a forest on that land. Maybe he'll "take care" of it by turning it into a parking lot. And you can't stop him, say the libertarians, because property is holy and sacred.


Your'e darn right

You want to save that rain forest - work and buy part of it

Let's see how well the Soviet Union treated the environment

recycling is a good thing. In fact it is a great thing. Telling people radical predictions of doom if they dont is another thing.

Let's see how well the Soviet Union treated the environment
There's no doubt that there are many on the left who don't give a rat's arse for the environment. I remember my days in the Leicester Radical Alliance (what a bunch of clowns they were...) that the 'reds' would taunt the 'greens' with their 'pave the world' songs.

West Europa's right, there are extremist right-wing environmentalists. They're a touch, um, creepy.

the country of russia has the worst environment on the planet by most accounts. also, it beguiles me that american money goes towards "saving" rain forests when the very countries that they are in will not hestitate to have them destroyed.

I think it is worth sacrificing a small part of the economy in order to do protect the environment.

OK, you get to decide what parts of the economy get "sacrificed."

Who's going to lose their jobs? Pick 'em, right now. We all need to know if you're going to "sacrifice" our jobs.

On the subject of environmental issues and economics, did anyone else read this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1279603,00.html) today? It's a bit of a downer, I must say.
A very compelling story to say the least. I have seen that boast about 17,000 "scientists" posted right here on these boards.

It appears that anyone who is concerned about mother earth are labelled "environmental wackos" by some people on these boards. In other words, if it comes down to dollars and sense, to hell with the sense.

People need to wake up to the harmful affects of pollution on not only our society, but the conditions that are going to be inheirited by the next generations.

In the meantime, everyone should do everything in their power to understand the vast problem at our doorstep and get proactive to effect a positive change.

It has taken supranational governmental non-market agencies to encourage these changes. And they ain't enough. Recycling is the tip of a whacking great iceberg.

I'd argue that western Europe has a very long way to go.

maybe so. But we do alot of recycling. We replant forests. get rid of those damn dumps.
So all in all we're alot more mature about it than most nations about the topic. Also we're members of the kyoto protocol and are working hard on meeting the targets. hopefully this stuff will help, not cure, but help

envirnmental ignorance: a teacher friend of mine once attended an envirnmental protest in new york city. He got several dozen signatures on his petition to ban the chemial dihydrogen oxide. he told them that it was often injested by humans in unpure form, can kill you when present in large amounts, can cause severe urination ect. ect.......anyway, he said it all with a striaght face and many people took what he said at face value ( many of them were on heavy drugs is my guess. ( dihydrogen oxide is h2o which is water)

the earth's temperature has gone up a small amount in the last 100 years. we can expect to pollute a lot less in the next 100 ( obvious laws, regulations, improvments in technology) yet many of the global warming activists draw this picture of the earth's heating up excellerating faster and faster for the next 100 years. to me, that is rediculous.

OK, you get to decide what parts of the economy get "sacrificed."

Who's going to lose their jobs? Pick 'em, right now. We all need to know if you're going to "sacrifice" our jobs.
This is a fair comment. The problem is (and let's just take the view for the moment that climate change is taking place and that it is something we can avert), jobs will be lost and economies hit by the degradation of the environment. We need to try and take on relatively small short-term losses in order not to suffer greater long-term losses.

I readily admit that this is a nightmare to work out as we have so very little quantitative data concerning the economic and social impacts of environmental change and aversion of such change. Sadly, like any discussion impacting on the economic, social and political spheres (ie all discussions!), most people are content to attack and discredit rather than come to consensus and treat opposing views with the gravity they merit.

maybe so. But we do alot of recycling. We replant forests. get rid of those damn dumps.
So all in all we're alot more mature about it than most nations about the topic. Also we're members of the kyoto protocol and are working hard on meeting the targets. hopefully this stuff will help, not cure, but help
Absolutely. I hope as well. But I'm a cynic, sadly.

envirnmental ignorance: a teacher friend of mine once attended an envirnmental protest in new york city. He got several dozen signatures on his petition to ban the chemial dihydrogen oxide. he told them that it was often injested by humans in unpure form, can kill you when present in large amounts, can cause severe urination ect. ect.......anyway, he said it all with a striaght face and many people took what he said at face value ( many of them were on heavy drugs is my guess. ( dihydrogen oxide is h2o which is water)
Ha! It's not just environmental protestors. You could play that kind of game with pretty much any group of pretty much any persuasion.

The mob is dumb. It's what makes me shy away from anarchism.

you'd think at some point a religious-right group would say something along the lines of:

"God made Heaven and Earth.. and we're messing up Earth pretty bad. Jesus wouldn't like that."

the earth's temperature has gone up a small amount in the last 100 years. we can expect to pollute a lot less in the next 100 ( obvious laws, regulations, improvments in technology) yet many of the global warming activists draw this picture of the earth's heating up excellerating faster and faster for the next 100 years. to me, that is rediculous.
Have you ever heard of the Kyoto Protocol (http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html)? It has been signed by MOST countries in the world, including Canada, Mexico, AND the USA. Canada and Mexico have ratified (http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/ratlist.pdf) the Protocol and the Bush administration is reluctant to do so. The obvious reluctance derives from the fact that the US is the world's number one polluter, and yes it will take time, money and research to reverse this situation.

Sticking one's head into the sand does not make the problem go away. Air pollution is not only contributing to global warming, it is having a direct negative effect on peoples' health. People are dying from the immediate effects, let alone the residual effects (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4057715,00.html).

Just saying it is ridiculous without backing it up is well......ridiculous!! :rolleyes:

OK, you get to decide what parts of the economy get "sacrificed."

Who's going to lose their jobs? Pick 'em, right now. We all need to know if you're going to "sacrifice" our jobs.
So you will choose wealth over health? Perhaps you or your loved ones will get to die wealthy, although at a much earlier age than anticipated?

Here is an example of a solution that actually saves consumers money, while improving the environment:

http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/060904/2225966.shtml

Current technology could make all new cars, trucks and SUVs average 40 miles per gallon within a decade, according to Sierra Club statistics.

Such a boost in mileage would save the average driver more than $2,200 at the gas pump over the life of the vehicle, according to Brendan Bell, an associate representative for the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C. Those savings could be higher now since the analysis was based on gas priced at $1.50 per gallon, he said.

The increased fuel efficiency would also save nearly 4 million barrels of oil a day, which is more than the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf and could ever take out of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge - combined.

The Sierra Club is focusing on improving gas mileage because it would cut the country's dependence on foreign oil, save consumers money and curb global warming.

There are solutions, and all that is required, is some participation, and a government that cares?

the truth is to preserve the environment is not one big change, its a series of changes. Auto makers are already switching to cleaner technologies, and it is definately in public awareness to begin a switch to cleaner safer things, its just a matter of convincing the few people left that dont think its necessary, meanwhile theres fish dying in the beachs because of the trash they choke on. that is undeniably our fault. that you cannot blame on cycles or anything, the only people to blame is us, and we need to change that togehter.

Kyoto prot = piece of crap

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-30-01.html

Absolutely. I hope as well. But I'm a cynic, sadly.

yeah me too

I didn't know Pittsburgh was so out of touch with reality.
That was clever. Clearly you have no idea what the policies of Al Gore were during the Clinton administration.

Regardless of what the true facts behind it are, getting back to the main point of the topic, the REASON people THINK environmental protection is exclusively a left-wing concern is that generally, if you take 100 leftists and 100 right-wings, you will find there are MANY more leftists who care about environment protection (probably 100% of them actually) than the right-wings (probably closer to 40-50%, although I'm just guessing these numbers).

Part of the reason is, the people on the religious right (you aren't going to hear of many religious lefts) will support conservative ideals, except the environment won't really receive any attention from them. As for the rest of us right-wingers, we DO care about the environment.
I don't think it is really the religious right that is anti-Earth. It is the rabid free marketeers who would like to turn everything over to corporations.

There is a religious left. Maybe not in America, but here in Europe many Catholics are conservative socially, but they support some government control of the economy.