Why do conservatives care so little about environmental issues?

Why do conservatives care so little about environmental issues?

man has no effect on the environment you dumb nigger

what the fucks that slut done for me?

Clean air and clean water.

Why do environmentalists care so little about environmental issues? I mean they all advocate for mass immigration and mass food/medical aid which both cause unsustainable population growth.

"but muh global warming"

because the environment isnt some fragile tree that dies if it touches smoke. get a grip you fucking tree hugger

Because all of the western countries can't change the chinks from producing smog.

Pretty sure you don't know what the fuck it is you're talking about. But please, continue going through life being willfully ignorant about who cares for and funds our forrests and wetlands. Protip: it's not fucking liberals.

become environmentalist has been hijacked by liberals and used to control markets and make regulations which hurt rivals. We would be much better off if we began promoting "conservation" instead of environmentalism. It can be the right wing alternative which seeks to bolster efficiency and promotes incentives to make renewable energy viable.

Because carbon dioxide is not an environmental issue.

They do.

Environmentalists don't care about the environment. They care about enforcing communism.

Clean air and clean water and pretty trees are all conservative-approved. Deranged anti-CO2 geoengineering is an actual conspiracy.

Because the environment sucks, in a few years we'll invent something to get rid of it and live in pure mechanical/technological cities.

I do care about environmental issues. In fact I majored in environmental science because I cared.

But the problem is, as the old saying goes: "The environmental movement is like a watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside."

The environmental movement got co-opted by marxists and commies decades ago. These people are not willing to use free market ideas to help the environment and conservation.

For instance, the easiest way to increase the tiger population would be to legalize tiger farms where they're harvested for pelts, teeth and meat. Just like there were no cows in north america a few hundred years ago, and now there's millions, the tiger population would grow as long as there's a market for tiger products, which there certainly is, worldwide.

But environmentalists and animal rights activists would never even consider this option. They'd rather the population goes extinct. I had to distance myself from the environmental movement when I came to the conclusion these people would not do ANYTHING to actually help the environment.

what is plastic pollution in oceans?

I care, I just realise Green policy is more about ideological conviction than actual environmentalism.

Solar and wind has a massive enviro footprint compared to energy produced. Inefficiency is not good for the environment. Nuclear is currently our best option when it comes to TWH generated per death or per unit area of land altered/used. Footprint minimisation is key.

Efficiency is useful but there is only so much we can do to reduce power usage before we begin damaging our quality of life and that just wont fly. The massive reductions in per capita energy usaged called for by greens would require huge QOL sacrifices as the two correlate extremely well.

I always ask how many dead babies is reduction of energy usage worth to a green, because infant mortality decreases as per capita energy use increases. I am considering making a dead baby index to map green policies onto.

There is nothing green about making the west less economically competitive. It just pushes pollution to places where greens have no influence. They are off-shoring pollution as much as jobs.

Nothing is worse for the environment than the current crop of environmentalists.

You can't just farm apex predators you mong

National parks in America where created by a republican you dumb fuck.

Unfortunately, due to chinks shitting up the air and Indians quite literally shitting up the water and land, and effort by whites to preserve the environment will be rendered void.

>107731466
>Implying

I don't need to believe that man is the primary cause of climate change in order to want to breathe clean fresh air and drink clean water.

70% of hunters know more about animals and do more for their preservation than crybaby vegans do or ever will.

Geoengineering actually has some great potential if it is persued with clear and rational objectives.

I for one would love to turn massive sections of western Queensland from scrub-land barely useful for grazing into productive farmland by diverting rivers running to the ocean inland instead. This would also reduce silt runoff that is damaging the great barrier reef.

OFC, greens oppose the idea.

Sure you can. The chinese are doing it right now in horrifying conditions.

They're not doing it successfully

ill have to check/agree with the kraut for once. plastic is generally disgusting and im ashamed i have to use it.

>incentives to make renewable energy viable.

Renewable energy is a meme. The sources are too defuse to ever be viable compared to baseload generation methods, especially in densely populated areas. Ye canna change the laws of physics.

They're doing it well enough to farm tiger penises for dick enhancing "medicine".

True as fuck, why the civilized man has to be the one doing any efforts? Look at these shit holes, they have to change, not us

Proofs?

Because environmentalism became the domain of rabid leftists, cultural marxists, and the pitied

>wanting to concrete the country over to accommodate an infinite supply of third worlders is environmentalism
so-called environmentalists have done tremendous damage to the UK

>OFC, greens oppose the idea.
Oh yes. Just like they oppose genetically engineered crops to feed the hungry.

A lot of them literally want humans to die off, so they can have their precious stagnant earth all to themselves forever.
I was referring to the crazy plots to blot out the sun with aerosols and satellites, or to spend billions injecting CO2 into rock.
Literally plots to fuck over the West.

CO2 sequestration is a possibility and an option but it must be efficient enough to be worth the energy expenditure.

So far, no project has presented such a method.

Greens are anti-humanist at heart, they see all human activity as a net negative to the world and want to minimise it. Meanwhile most support mass migration which is responsible for a huge portion of the growing population of the world in general and the west in particular. Astounding hypocrisy in action.

beautiful

Religion.
Coins have 2 sides.

They used to until the environmental movement was co-opted by commie pieces of shit. Hell who do you think actually interacts with the environment more? Right wing country folk or liberal inner city libs who see maybe 10 trees a year?

This, too.

>CO2 sequestration is
Actually ridiculous. Pic related.

Plants use that stuff to breathe, man. It's a net benefit. The crazies want it gone BECAUSE it's a net benefit, since it causes food crops to grow more. CO2 fertilization.

Just plant trees.

I'm generally a conservative and I care about preserving the environment, especially the beauty of the US countryside. However, heavy regulation disguised as "environmental protection" has been used as a bludgeon to bash small enterprise and ship our jobs to places that would pollute even worse

good post

Which is a possible valid method, though the impact is minimal.

Re-forestation is better for managing erosion and salinity anyway.

Just because something was a particular way in the distant past does not mean it is a preferable state to be in.

The world wont end with run-away CO2 levels but the changes in arable land and weather systems will result in geo-political instability.

This is assuming the models showing that a CO2 release can snowball due to increasing oceanic turbulence/mixing and release of dissolved co2 from slight temp increases. I remain on the fence.

whats your background mate

Liberals dont give a shit either, at least not their politician.
They just use environmental issues for votes, while they're passing laws that appeal to be "green" in fact it's actually an all out scam.
Take the dems war on coal. They pass laws restricting hydocarbon emissions that force power plants to convert to natural gas.
At the same time they're taking money from natural gas co.s and pushing fracting initiatives, which every environmental group opposes because of large methane releases and the impact on the land.
Or Bill Clinton passing laws putting alcohol in the gasoline. The excuse for that was that it will cut down on smog.
Well the real reason is that he received the largest political contribution in history from the corn growers. And the alcohol causes burning a larger hole in the ozone, reduces your mileage and fucks up the seals and metals in your fuel system.
Democrats find ways to cover up their real incentives with putting on a good show.

This.

It's a bit ironic to call yourself a "conservative" whilst not caring about the conservation of the environment. The cunts that want to start foresting, and drilling in national parks don't deserve to call themselves conservatives.

I.T. Initially but work is mostly in agri-science. (dont study I.T. its a meme degree)

>The world wont end with run-away CO2 levels but the changes in arable land and weather systems will result in geo-political instability.

Literally lies. The IPCC models have overestimated climate sensitivity by at least double.
>www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
>Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Plant life and diatom blooms are massive negative feedback systems.
The only way you get the empirically incorrect models is if you overestimate the positive feedback cycle from water vapor.

If we were going to be fucked from anthropogenics, we'd already be set to be fucked from natural glaciation and post-glacial variation. It's a wash, and wool-pull to get investments in 'green' corps.
Best path is adaptability, like researching more efficient solar panels, which can then compete economically without subsidy.

>I always ask how many dead babies is reduction of energy usage worth to a green, because infant mortality decreases as per capita energy use increases. I am considering making a dead baby index to map green policies onto.

Literally the dumbest fucking argument I've ever read. What's next, are you going to say that McDonald's density is proportional to income, therefore we need more McDonald's?

bit of a stretch yeah but are you going to say energy consumption and quality of life arent intertwined?