Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Some politicians seem to have it in for the environment these days. Whether its presidential hopeful Rick Perry denouncing climate science as a quote "cult" or his more moderate peer Jon Huntsman calling for environmental regulations to be put on hold until the economy improves, it's clear that protecting our air, water and other natural resources is no longer fashionable.
But their Grand Old Party actually started environmental protection in the first place. Richard Nixon signed into law most of the nation's landmark environmental laws and founded the Environmental Protection Agency back in 1970.
A bit further back, Teddy Roosevelt founded the national park system, among other efforts to conserve the natural heritage of the United States.
Of course, there are politicians on both sides of the aisle interested in preserving the environment and some conservatives accept the preponderance of scientific evidence on human-caused climate change, like Huntsman. And it's not like Democrats never despoil. Witness the long-standing protection of coal mining by virtually all West Virginia politicians.
But for the moment, some conservatives seem to have forgotten that conservation is inherently conservative.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentI said it once and it needs said again, "I will take 100 of your worst democrats in place of 1 (one) lying "perfect for the job" republican. One republican can create more death, destruction, poverty, and war than 100 democrats can...Bush is an excellent example of that fact. He did in eight years what it will take the democrats 40 years to undo. Bush was the first president who received close to 1,000,000 boos when he left office and his vice president did nore damage to American alies than any president or vice president in the history of this country. When a snake like Bush gets into office, the other snakes like Palin, Perry and Romney is drawn to his seat like a magnet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there some democrats who follow closely in the republican footprints like Manchin and Rockefellow and it takes an act of Congress to get those snakes out of office, but it can be done when you stop believing their republican lies, deceits and deceptions and vote them out.
"How about this argument"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk
"It is conservative because Conservatives also accept Capitalism as the best type of economy. A true and pure capitalist..."
Could you expand on what you mean by capitalism.
"I am talking purist here, certainly the past is full of capitalists who were criminal in the way they treated employees and resources but they are the morons following capitalism. Capitalism is not free from someone using it for greed, just like socialism..."
If I follow you say the problem is not the system but the persons running it... I'm also curious how you define socialism.
"... which is the ultimate form of greed for the elites who run it"
Why is socialism run by "morons" potentially more an ultimate from of greed than capitalism run by "morons"?
Capitalism in its purest form is everything in the economy is based on value assigned to product, ideas or time. Usually that value is represented as money, though prior to printed money it was product based. Anyway, a purist capitalist would recognize as bad business if he is depleting or destroying his product sources and killing of employees who have time and customers who buy the products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, exactly, the concept that money causes corruption or absolute power corrupts is nonsense. People are bad. American politics or economies are not inherently a problem, it is the corrupt politicians and the people who benefit from that corruption that is the problem.
I am unconcerned with the feel good definitions of socialism. I am going by results, as I did above with capitalism. The result of all past attempts at communism/socialism is destitution for the majority, all equally miserable and the few elites who have stolen or taken all money, products and value. The definition of greed is to take from others for your own benefit, not earn it and socialist leaders always do exactly that. They take the wealth of all, starting with the producers and eventually everyone, for their own personal gain, though they claim it is for the people.
Socialist are morons because it takes a moron to continue to follow a dogma and implement it, knowing that all past attempts have failed. Socialism, in all forms going all the way back to the Roman Empire(yeah they did it too) failed. Always with the end of the country or city it is tried in after a large percentage of the population is dead or destitute.
Capitalism on the other hand is a proven success. I would agree though that corrupt fools who use it for their nefarious purposes are also morons. The only difference between these morons and socialist morons, is at least these guys do not follow a dogma that is a proven failure.
I guess I understand this article but generally speaking what is it about environmental debates that brings out the most partisan people? I honestly don't care which party did what. I do, however, care about protecting the environment now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe solutions will have to include a mix of private and government partners. Such as government subsidies for renewable energy and large scale recycling. We could pay for it with taxes on carbon. And before you cry socialist remember there are external costs associated with burning fossil fuels such as health problems from pollution and loss of farm productivity not included in the price so it's over produced. On the other hand cap and trade is largely a free market solution which worked very well for SO2 at a cost lower than estimated.
We could also start allowing investors to buy stocks of populations such as tuna so the investors would have an interest in maintaining a healthy population and discouraging poaching.
"priddseren", it seem you are the one who got their political parties mixed up. But of course, that and a "convenient memory loss" is typical of the republican party. You blame all your screw ups on other people. Here is an example how you work: The oil spill in the Gulf is Obama's Katrina. -Fox News- The earthquake in Dominican Republic is Obama's Iraq. -Speaker Boner- The two Bush wars and the collapse of the American economy is Obama's fault. -priddseren and the GOP- Obama is not American, he was born in Hawaii. -GOP- Ten million lost jobs is Obama's Wall Street. -GOP-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou republicans are fantastic people, aren't you?
"Anyway, a purist capitalist would recognize as bad business if he is depleting or destroying his product sources and killing of employees who have time and customers who buy the products."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fail to see how this is also not a central tenet of socialism, feel-good or not. For example, liberals were arguing years ago about how awful the national debt was, long before you people discovered it as the cause of the day.
Your first mistake is to assume I am republican.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou did not actually show any evidence of even opinion on any of my statements, except that the current economy is in fact the fault of the democrats. Democrats took control in 2006, only Bush was there. Sure blame him for not vetoing but you libs would have just attacked him insanely. Had he not signed you would be complaining just as much as you are because he did sign. Fine Blame one republican you are a blind fool if you ignore the fact it was Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and a majority democrat congress(including Senator Obama) that killed this economy. Then you remove Bush and add Obama and the democrats turn it into the great recession. I never blamed any war on Obama, you are the fool who thinks the wars have anything to do with Obama racking up 3T in deficits on top of what Bush added. And I blamed the democrats for the cause of the recession, THEY WERE IN CONTROL, Obama turned it into the great recession, THEY WERE IN TOTAL FILIBUSTER PROOF CONTROL for this one. Sorry, you can make any claim you want, but the party in power gets the blame. It isn't my fault the times the republicans were in power, 2002 to 2006, 1994 to 1998 were all good economies.
As far as all the rest of your nonsense, you will never find me making those idiotic statements. Last time I checked natural disasters are not anyone's fault.
Don't care where Obama was born, the fact is he was raised in Indonesia and it is where you were raised that sets the character and morals of the adult the child becomes.
But while we are on the subject of insane opinions, lets see. The democrats love to claim they are for minorities and women, yet the democrats created segregation and they support regimes worldwide that oppress women so thoroughly it is hard to even call the men doing these crimes human.
The dems constantly claim the republicans want to kill off the elderly, children, the disabled and well everyone else, yeah sure that is exactly what the republicans want.
Stop assuming who I am, I am NOT one of these moron republicans who think bibles and tradition are the basis of law, I am even further from you morons who thing the failed communist manefisto, socialism or any related failure is a good idea and followed as if they were bibles.
It is not the central tenet of socialism based on its past failures. Since it has never worked but has been tried many times it is easy to just look at Russia, China or any other place and see the completely depleted farmland, the cess pool rivers and areas so toxic just getting within a mile of the place would kill you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSocialism results are equal misery, not some sort of economic utopia.
Considering the democrats happily racked up the majority of that debt(you forget they controlled the house and senate for most of the last 80 years) Under Reagen it was Tip Oneal and his Democrats passing deficit spending under Reagan, It was Tom Dachle and his Democrats passing spending for Bush, Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats for Bush again and Nancy Pelosi and Obama and their democrats racking up the biggest deficits ever. Then add in the Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare all passed when Democrats had total filibuster proof control of everything and they are either the current biggest problem or will be once obamacare starts.
The problem is not deficits, it is the spending. The damn governments state and fed combined are spending nearly the GNP of both Japan and China and you democrats dont see this as a problem, I am amazed.
So your claim the democrats were complaining about deficits is pointless, they were the ones passing most of the laws that created the debt. The worst the republicans can be blamed for is the few times they had bare majorities, they did not reverse any of this. Of course, who would complain, since the republicans had created the 90s economy and the 2002 to 2006 economy.
The piece is sort of bogus; environmental protection involves laws... it requires government action, ergo, it not conservative. It is ethically progressive & progressive political ideology is more aligned with that goal of morality; conservatism is the ideology which values capital gains & a lack of government as good... progressive-ism values well-being & the prevention of suffering (not as mere products of a free market, but as goals in & of themselves, rightfully).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@priddseren
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, thought your argument still does not support your original assertions.
You are talking capitalism but have not define what you mean (though you have define a bit what you mean by “pure” capitalism).
You are talking about socialism but fail to define what it means (and you have even less defined what “pure” socialism would mean.
In other words, you are comparing the terms but using different contextual schemes to define them therefore it is not possible to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Furthermore, you are talking about "failed" instances of “socialism” and you are not talking about "failed" instances of “capitalism”.
Personally, taking some liberty and not defining terms, I'm not sure socialist and capitalist thought can be extricated from one and other. For example, take the facets of socialism and capitalism involved in family, friends, community, and even the market.
Marc Levesque 974Q83256
There was a time when forest owners invested over a 200 year period. These days computerised investors invest over periods of thousandths of a second. This is conservatism standing on its head!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskleink : What is the difference between 'conservatism' and 'conservation'? Originally they both meant 'Economy'. But today American Conservatives have deformed 'conservatism' to mean only 'personal wealth'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskleink : After the 1929 crash markets were regulated and the west prospered. It is now internationally recognised by most Nobel-prize economists that Reagan foolishly thought that because there was no crisis he could derugulate the markets. The result was today's financial mess which nobody but a fool could deny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first measure that should be taken is to reinstate a rate of usuary - maximum interest to reverse the debt crisis.