Conservative/Libertarian Environmentalist Unite!!!
 

Since is painfully obvious that the radical left wants to use Environmentalist to erase libertarianism and freedom from the face of the Earth, there is no choice but for those of that do care for the environment as well as our freedom to unite

Here are some links to get started.


Republicans for Environmental Protection

The Right Conservative Position On The Environment


CREATING A CONSERVATIVE ENVIRONMENTALISM

:);):)

Does not compute.

For radical leftists I'm sure it doesn't...

I care about the environment, but I don't think it's in imminent danger because of humans. I think we should be good stewards, but I also understand how we aren't a major contributing factor to any kind of carbon emmissions.

Interesting because as you can see not all conservatives agree on this. But what they all agree is that it should never be used to grow the sphere of government which is what the radical left is after with the implementation of a huge big brother government. And there are many green technologies coming along that could help forestall the scenario that we see in the movie which like you I do not see as imminent but unlike you as possible if we just keep as we are today.

Carbon isn't the only problem, IMO the bigger one is pollution. People can reasonably claim that global warming is a natural process, but I don't know how people can claim that the planet naturally grew smog and garbage.

You're thinking of big cities. Think about the rest of the world. I mean, volcanoes are probably the biggest contributer to greenhouse gases. But does global warming really exist? My contention is: no.

Global Warming is a misnomer truth be told, the name for it should really be climate change. Now a lot of hype and alarmist innuendos have been thrown into this as well, which doesn't help the situation at all.

So the answer for is there climate change and do humans have something to do with it? The answer is yes, our emissions do have an impact.

Now does that mean Earth is now hopelessly doomed to die unless we all embrace a one world Marxist government as the radical left wants? Absolutely not!

There are already green technologies and Eco-friendly technologies available that can reduce and ultimately forestall any damage and we most certainly won't get into the situation we see in the Avatar movie unless we become so blind and retarded to do something like that and I don't give a hoot what the leftists of this board, one in particular has to say about it.

Is Ironic that the left asks why are there bike paths for communities but not big brother legislation to do this or that. They just don't get it. The first was a result of the action of individuals within those communities who got others involved and through their individual action managed to get those Bike paths not through a mandate forcing those paths to be built or people to forcefully ride bikes etc.

The equation is simple really Any Government big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take all you have.

Your title is extremely misleading, it insinuates that only the right can be environmentalists, which is totally wrong. I see that you wished to copy my idea, which is ok.

We agree on this.

Your making it out as if Marxism is worse than what it really is, you are responsible for the major stigma the world has about it. I'm not saying that we're hoplessly doomed without it, I'm just saying we could save the majority of the world's population with a socialist world order whereas only a few million magnates with enough money to protect themselves from destruction with survive.

Capitalism is blind and retarded.

Poor example. When individuals work togethor to make something get done, like the November revolution in 1917 Russia, that makes it a collective movement.

Oh, but why would they do that if they're risking revolution?

In my observation, environmentalism seems to be easier for those that have a left leaning view of economics to reconcile because many of the solutions proposed by environmentalism involves regulating business practices. This is mainly to control negative externalities that are produced by such practices. It seems that those on the right are not in favor of regulation to such a strong degree. Thus, the main point of conflict seems to be over economic view points.

The inability to take care of the environment while using it for resources and the inability to adapt to unforeseen environmental changes have played a part in the fall of numerous societies (The Sumerian, Greenland Norse, and Anasazi come to mind right away). I believe most people, both on the right and the left, believe a healthy environment is important for a society. The main disagreements seem to be centered on what practices to implement and to what degree.

I'm a libertarian. I think that even if 'global warming' (or 'climate change' as they renamed it when it became obvious temperatures weren't changing) is a transparent excuse to raise taxes and increase micromanagement.

I do think the environment is important, but there are FAR more important issues than agonising over releasing 0.00001% more CO2... The real important issues are ones like deforestation and the destruction of natural environments.

No I did not, I made clear I was talking about the Radical left and not the left in general so sorry in this case you are wrong, try again.

^ Hm, yeah. Kind of like how Jefferson referred to "separation between church and state" as meaning how the government couldn't force itself on the church, or establish a state church, not that you couldn't pray in schools or the like. I mean, Congress held prayer meetings in the Capitol.

Same exists with environmentalism, but the only reason why the government is involving itself is to push more regulation on the public.

There's a compelling argument to be made about "market failure" in the case of environmentalism due to the Tragedy of the Commons. Now, how one goes about correcting market failure (specifically the undervaluation or even flat-out assumption the environment has no value) is another story entirely. Market-based policies such as Cap and Trade (which is not, as much as the American Right likes to squeal, as radical as it sounds--it was done under Clinton successfully for sulfur and is supported by economists) is an example of a politically-feasible and market-friendly solution. Government sets an overall ceiling and lets the market figure out how to reach that solution efficiently. I believe there is a sufficient level of market failure to justify some government intervention (usually in the form of "We set the overall limit, do whatever you want to get there").

Mandates ("Cut pollution by 10 tons or else") tend to be less efficient, and possibly less effective.