I can understand political differences over the methodology of environmental preservation--i.e., a conservative believing the private sector should be the force behind it, while a liberal believes the Federal Government should buttress the private sector's efforts, and all manner of mixtures in between on the political spectrum.
But I don't get why the idea that, in the long run, protecting the environment is at least to some degree beneficial to human well-being is so often seen as a purely political, leftist thing. It just borders on irrational sometimes: I see liberal people who get into environmentalism just because they feel they must in order to be 'liberal', and I know conservatives who despise environmentalists and environmentalism not on its own merits but merely because they associate it with the left. (jigs)
The lines are softening amongst the millenial generation (they seem to be more apolitical about the subject) but why is this politicized in the first place?
>But I don't get why the idea that, in the long run, protecting the environment is at least to some degree beneficial to human well-being is so often seen as a purely political, leftist thing.
Because their solutions to protecting the environment all involve distinctly leftist concepts.
It's all just virtue-signaling anyway. You're never going to meet someone who unironically says they want to destroy the environment.
Elijah Ward
If anything, environmentalism should be a conservative idea. Leftists are supposed to be the ones who will risk the very air we breathe in order to exact the change they want.
Unfortunately, most conservatives nowadays are not real conservatives. They suck the Jewish cock and their only argument against environmentalism is muh taxes and muh cash grab (notice how they only think about money, like the Jew).
Aiden Murphy
>Because their solutions to protecting the environment all involve distinctly leftist concepts.
What are your solutions, then, Shlomo?
Landon Taylor
You will find people who think that there aren't any threats to the environment.
Leo Harris
Fucking get over it and accept that the free market is not the best soure of power for protecting the environment since corporations usally only care about their gains today and not about the costs 50 years down the line. That's not how humans think. And too many people with this "fuck you, got mine" attitude will fuck up the environment in the long run.
Nathan Bennett
Because many people are very childish and will stem against it, only because they see that leftists and hippies like it. Contrairians after all.
Julian Rodriguez
Because the requirement of liberties being restricted.
To make any suitable impact means a reduced quality of life for average people. It's communism with green skin
Landon Smith
I always thought that it was one of the ways the left gets people on their side.
And by that I mean, the average person might not give a shit about politics, but they will give a shit about the environment (because it's important and almost everyone is aware of the issues we're facing) so the left just adopted it as a "THE LEFT WILL SAVE THE TREES THE RIGHT ONLY CARES ABOUT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS!!", and so when it comes time to pick a side, normies who know nothing about politics will go left because they see in the media how some weird independent politician who doesn't wear shoes has leftist opinions and so people associate left with saving the environment and right with not caring, as fabricated by media, celebrities, talk show hosts etc.
To be fair, the right is more about the here and now, and how best to benefit the economic wellbeing of the average citizen in their country, less so than the world, and the left is all about globalism and uniting and saving the trees.
Tyler Ross
Because our impact on the environment doesn't matter, our relationship with the environment matters.
If you define the environment as the absence of human action. Then it follows that all human action will harm the environment. The science all follows from this premise.
But most people view the environment as something that we change and engineer to meet our needs. That nature on it's own can screw us a million different ways. So instead of relying on nature we rely on industrial processes.
All the co2 we emit we emit for a reason. To make the world, our society and the environment to be what we want/need it to be.
Liberals have rigged the whole premise of environmentalism to justify their misanthropic world view.
Oliver Gutierrez
Because protecting the environment comes at the cost of inhibiting businesses a lot of the time.
I live in Cleveland, and we had a HUGE economic boom in the first part of the last century due to the fact that we encouraged businesses to come here because we had no problem with them dumping whatever they wanted in the Cuyahoga River.
Then it caught on fire. A lot.
The river got so polluted that if you held a flame over it the water would catch fire.
That's when politicians started cracking down on the way corporations treat the environment, and a lot of companies left the city. Luckily after decades of being on an economic downturn we've actually started climbing back, but it seems fairly simple and straightforward why this is a politicized issue. Protecting the environment comes at the price of slowing down corporate growth and republicans put money over everything.
Dylan Davis
>Fucking get over it and accept that the free market is not the best soure of power for protecting the environment since corporations usally only care about their gains today and not about the costs 50 years down the line. That's not how humans think.
That must explain why so many corporations now are going out of their way to adopt environmentally-friendly policies in order to placate shareholders and customers who demand such things.
Angel Evans
If you want to look at it from a conservative, free market, economic perspective, renewable energy has the potential to completely transform the economy. Imagine if we needed hundreds of thousands of jobs in every state to transform our energy infrastructure to accommodate renewable energy. Wouldn't that be an economic boon?
The problem with people like Trump is that they are outright lying to people in places like Kentucky. Coal mining is dying, and it has nothing to do with big guv'ment or economic regulations. It's just no longer economically viable - the coal mining that is done now is mountain stripping with virtually no man power involved (and thus, no jobs). If we aren't moving to renewable energy, fracking has made natural gas the new cheap consumable energy that makes the most economic sense.
Cameron Watson
What many people seem to forget is the monetary value natural areas provide for free that would otherwise cost money again. Examples for this are the cleaning of water and savety of floods just to name two. Don't even need to start with pollinators that already require in the US to be transported from A to B because there are not enouth around/killed by insecticides.
Dylan Richardson
Fracking is maybe the worst thing to happen to the environment since the industrial revolution. You're right, it does bring jobs, but it also completely fucks everything around it for miles.
Fracking is a bad plan for the environment and for the economy in the long run. We need to be investing in green energy if we want to secure money AND a planet to spend it on in the future.
Brayden Campbell
On the outside. They try to look green. This trend is so prevalent that the name green washing was invented just for it. You don't really think that recycling the napkins at McDonalds is gonna help stopping cutting down a shit ton of forest just to make space for cattle.
Jackson Howard
Its because libertarians in America believe in (((freedom))) for (((corporations))) to destroy the enviroment. Authoritarian conservatives should protect their homelands enviroment.
Noah Lewis
Recycling corporations do not actually recycle the materials that you throw into the recyclables bin. By some chance it always seems to end up in the same waste bucket.
Angel Myers
>Authoritarian conservatives should protect their homelands enviroment. And this in a nutshell is why it's a political issue.
With an authoritarian government you could allow businesses to grow and still protect the environment, but it would come at the cost of your civil liberties. Places like Sup Forums couldn't exist under such a government, and we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation we're having right now.
Benjamin Evans
>We need to be investing in green energy if we want to secure money AND a planet to spend it on in the future. Better plan is close your industry, investing in most cheap energy in China, import goods from there virtue-signaling how good you protecting environment in your country. Bucks+green economy.
Jason Martin
>You don't really think that recycling the napkins at McDonalds is gonna help stopping cutting down a shit ton of forest just to make space for cattle.
That's the point, though. There's only one group of people who have the power to stop Macky Dee's from doing that.
Owen Jackson
no green fascists here? senpai do you even pennti linkola?
Oliver Hughes
Authoritarian governments are not interested in the environment. It is much easier just to tell on TV that everything is ok and send all dissidents to the gulag than deal with issue itself.
Jacob Morales
Because bourgeoisie liberal capitalism is de facto rightism in the western world. All liberal systems are however equally shit for actually enacting environmentalist policies.
I am actually mostly describable as eco-authoritarian and am inspired by deep ecology, but I think nazbol, i.e. extremely authoritarian national communism is the best way to preserve the natural world.
Brody Rogers
>With an authoritarian government you could allow businesses to grow and still protect the environment, but it would come at the cost of your civil liberties. Why are you putting corporate liberties on the same level as civil ones?
Thomas Foster
Both sides generally agree with the principal of not throwing your trash on the ground or dumping massive amounts of waste in the water.
The divergence comes from leftists claiming that businesses and industries they've always had an irrational hatred for now have a fancy scientific explanation for being bad and thus need to be shut down for the good of science.
People on the right hate this because it's bad for business, and they know that all that's going to change is that these industries that lefties hate will just move to China and keep chugging along as if nothing happened. The economy gets cucked, all so hippies can forget about muh big bad corporations that keep doing the same shit, because now they're far enough away that they don't have to think about it.
Hunter Rogers
>Authoritarian governments are not interested in the environment. I know one
Thomas Fisher
>With an authoritarian government you could allow businesses to grow and still protect the environment Wrong, collectivization of lands would be essential to this end. We like to believe that farmers are responsible and can own their own land all they want, but we can see even here in Norway where farming is small scale that it is just as irresponsible and destructive to the local eco-system. actually details this in one the final articles in "Can Life Prevail?".
Juan Gomez
this is a truly rare and nice pepe user
Josiah Phillips
Liberals are really Authoritarians in liberal clothing. They want to make business too expensive for you to operate with all kinds of regulation and fees. Business license, tax, minimum wage, skin color quotas, etc.
Giving modern liberals power is like giving the King and his court power over you 300 years ago. They get all the benefits and you get all the work and regulations. If you are lucky they won't force you to starve.
Nolan Turner
this
Jacob Howard
Because in America, Jewish talk radio hosts have whipped up the right wing into the whole Ayn Rand "fuck the earth" mentality. Boomer conservatives consider it to be somehow manly to not give a fuck about the environment.
Also, Christians have been convinced with scripture saying that the Earth is here for us, not the other way around. Like a sandcastle that we can trash and destroy as we please
Adam Barnes
>I always thought that it was one of the ways the left gets people on their side. This
And the current mainstream environment thought is wacky, illogical, devoid of any sense, and rest comfortably and accurately with the left.
Brayden Jones
I know. I deemed this thread somewhat worthy because the enviornment is important to me.
Jack Hill
So destroying unique one-of-a-kind natural environments with corporate farms and suburbs is a good thing now? This is fucking retarded, how can people think this way. Hitler used to talk all the time about environmentalism, respecting the fatherland. The place where the German people literally evolved, shaping them like clay
Nolan Green
Because for many leftists, who are essentially secular calvinists, issues based around vague ideals with no solid meaning like "environmentalism" and "social justice" aren't about scientific realities or rational utility maximization, but rather about narratives of sin and guilt/redemption arcs.
Henry Smith
And also, Most environmentalist live in large cities, and they think eveyone else should as well. Their ideas and "solutions" are only good for city life. An electric car is worthless to someone who lives in the country, especially in the north. I just find it funny that environmentalist claim to love the environment but they all live in large cities and never go fishing/camping/hunting/skiing. They love the environment, but never go out and enjoy it.
Sebastian Cox
i'd consider myself ancap/minarchist but i care about the environment probably more so than any lefty. monsanto and other corps like it need to be executed by right wing death squads. you don't just fuck up the biosphere billions of years into the making because 'muh food'.
Henry Brown
you could create hundreds of thousands of jobs by outlawing calculators so that all maths problems had to be solved by hand. where's the economic value? cost =/= value
Grayson Torres
Another point, to come back to OPs main theme of left and right in this issue: In the US coal has an important role. The thing is, that the politics often made the mistake of just ordering/forbidding something, just like they did with some coal usage. Without offering any other way or solution for the people depending on it they literally legislated their jobs away. So it is understandable that those would then get into a Fuck Earth mentality. So here we have the government at task to not only forbid something but also offer a real alternative. Just saying they should suddenly learn a new trade will not work.
Just a small new point to revitalize this discussion.
Connor James
You are literally retarded, you've mis analyzed the entire situation.
>>liberals want the evil government to kill everyone
Yes, so realistic, that's exactly what those evil liberals would want isn't it?
>>muh free market is perfect, humans aren't greedy, selfish or hateful at all
Andrew Sanders
Let me tell you, there are many reasons for enviornmentalism. Just not the way the left does it. Just as you said they are only lead by blind ideolgy. Ths for example leads to stupid shit like bio fuel or the stop of nuclear energy while we stil have that fucking stuff ready in our reactors. It will decay regardless if we use it or not.
Bees and wetlands are some of the best example of the amount of money that you can save with a planned and inteligent conservation of enviroment and landscape.
Gabriel Taylor
Exactly. The right wing needs to embrace environmentalism, as in respect for the natural world.
This is part of the transition from the false ideology of Conservatism into a more Traditionalist, Nationalist movement.
Jeremiah Scott
It's a result of the the left's continued conflation of socialism with compassion. We care about it, whatever it is, so the compassionate thing to do is have the government compel everyone to care (read pay for) it. Collective ownership however is demonstrably bad because it creates the tragedy of Commons. If everyone owns it no one owns it. Ownership however is what is fundamentally critical for any sort of preservation. You can see this in the deference of attitudes between a renter and the landlord. The renter reasonably does not care about the capital value preservation of the property any further than his security deposit travels, but the owner wants to maintain or increase the capital value of his investment so he has actual motivation to preserve the property. Likewise if environmental groups actually cared for the environment they would be buying up swathes of land and charging admission to their nature parks. Being the Communists that they are, however, prevents them ideologically from doing this so they would rather petition the state to put a gun to your head and take your money instead
Juan Martinez
Hitler loved nature. "Environment" is such a dehumanization of nature and animals. It's too clinical and soulless, just like all Lefitsts.
Easton Adams
Yes, the left has proven historically to be terrible administering natural resources.
Don't forget, for example, the case of the Aral Sea.
Fuck off, national and state parks are a waste of taxpayer money and it's be better off we turn them into places where people can find jobs and we could open them up for hunting, a lot of jobs could be created by this. Also all environmentalists are Jews or sjws, the earth isn't warming up, it's all just a way to get money
Tyler Allen
I like this one. It has a few examples that show the costs for example
This , UNKEK speak the truth , the left is terribly with resources , capitalism leads to efficiency due to free market competence , for example an a380 plane that carries 600 people is today more efficiently than a plane that carried 100 people 30 years ago because composites instead of using aluminium.
All this happened because capitalistic competence forced a good use of resources to survive. When the URSS collapsed in the 90s , they contaminated almost the same than the muricans , but the muricans had 2x the population and more cars than people.
That says all you need to know about leftist managing resources.
Landon Walker
also on the aral sea on the middle island of the first picture they tested biological weapons for the luls , and in chernobyl , the "accident" happened because some leftist cuck that got his job due to favoritism ordered the employees on the power station to do a test that would make the nuclear reactor explode.
But then again when everything is controlled by the government you dont have the balls to tell your employeer he is wrong so the technicians at chernobyl did the test knowing everything would go to hell.
This is what happens when you let leftist manage everything.
>Why is environmentalism politicized as a "leftist/liberal" thing?
because "rightest/conservatives" make money of destroying the environment.
Lots of money.
Hundreds of billions of dollars.
David Morris
They want to obscure the fact that teddy Roosevelt was a republican that gave us the national parks, Nixon was a republican that gave us the clean air act and EPA, and dubya opened up public lands for public use.
Zachary Wright
What really is happening is that it is an divide and conquer thing by (((them))) because like said (((they))) are making billions of uncontrolled globalsim without regard for nature.
Jose Smith
Because while conservatives don't want to pollute or destroy our environment, we don't care that some random species of toad might be hurt by building a factory or a power plant. For example, I live in Michigan and a lot of our beaches are ugly as fuck because the owners aren't allowed to cut down the tall grass that grows. I don't remember the dumb fucking reason why, but some species of bug or something would be hurt so we need to have ugly fucking beaches. It's nonsense.
Elijah Barnes
And this is one fo the reasons why conservatives also need to invest themselfs in enviornment toppics instead of dismissing them. Work activly in the decisionmaking process and we would have more constructive results.
Nathan Russell
Think about it this way: Liberals: >Want to use up thousands of acres of land to build solar farms to power their overpopulating cities Conservatives want to build small nuclear power plants to provide energy for a population that practices abstinence and self control. >Want to increase taxes, which would ultimately hinder the poor and benefit the rich Conservatives want to lower taxes for all, thus giving small businesses a competitive edge. >Want to open borders and tear down walls, to allow more trade and to exploit third world people Conservatives want self-sustainability and isolation, to close borders and build walls, so we can live on our own terms. >Want to regulate every thing, make as many laws as possible, and then simultaneously get upset at how many laws there are Conservatives want there to be less government in general, and give people an environment that is built on trust rather than compromise, ethics instead of politics, morals instead of political correctness.
Brody Mitchell
because the left uses environmentalism as a way to virtue signal and promote globalism.
>"if we act more like europe and start adding higher fuel taxes, it will save the trees! if we act more like germany and do X, that will save our children!"
while conservatives, (traditionally anyway) are more abotu conservation of nature within reason, as long as it does not interfere with the economic prosperity of the area. talking about the whales and the polar bears is nice when sitting on a couch at home sipping margaritas, but when environmental regulation makes the area starve economically, then it stops being worth it.
also much like conservatives often have stock in oil and industry, (and thus care less) liberals all have stock in green companies like Tesla, or that wind company obama subsidized. so they also care only because in addition to promoting globalism, it lines their pockets.
Alexander Martinez
Because reasons, just swallow the Dem/Rep pill and stop asking questions.
Isaac Lee
Btw everyone can do their part by growing stuff yourself
Jayden Carter
Because environmentalists take a religious attitude. They act as if any ""destruction"" of nature is a great moral evil.
The ultimate abdication of human will and the surrender of human desires is a distinctly leftist trait.
Nicholas Collins
because for some reason the so-called "green parties" in various countries are full of 'watermelons*: green on the outside & red on the inside
