Why don't conservatives want to conserve the environment?

Why don't conservatives want to conserve the environment?

Other urls found in this thread:

eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_energy
youtube.com/watch?v=u2ll1mzLulc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

jews

Who says they don't ? There are right wing green parties ,you know.

I do?

But Theodore Roosevelt doubled the number of national parks.
And Richard Nixon created the EPA.
And George W. created the world's largest marine preserve, larger than Australia's Great Barrier Reef preserve.

I do, but that doesn't mean stop industry and wasting money on memes like solar and wind, which creates even more pollution due to the manufacturing process.

Because its a meme.

Nature fix itself

Chopping up endangered birds with wind turbines so you can virtue signal to faggots on jewbook does not "help" the environment.

>Muh environment

Carbon tax.

Jack shit will happen as long as the Petrodollar exists, you filthy, kike-enabling hippie.

More carbon dioxide benefits the environment. Carbonophobia is a leftist mental disorder.

Because the typical "conservative" is just servicing the Jew corporations to the detriment of America and the world. The right exists to give corporations more power, spinning it as "small government" or "freedom". Freedom to get shit on, haha

This is the answer senpai.

Your fucking stupid or your countries conservatives are stupid.

THIS.

So-called 'green energy' produces more pollution per Kw generated than oil, coal, or natural gas.

Grew up in Texas where my electricity came for the local wind farms. Moved up to New York for college where my electricity came from coal. It really made me think.

By making the planet unlivable for humans. Good solution.

...

Because environmentalism is just veiled socialism. Sure, have your national parks and what not, but when a bunch of trees stands between us and achieving a better standard of living you better bet Alvin and the Chimp-monks are going homeless.

Niggers make the planet unlivable for humans. If you're a true environmentalist then you'll also be a eugenicist.

I'd rather focus on more important things than worry about the environment.

False dichotomy, usually presented by liberals.

Why do you hate good things?

I don't?

Example - ducks unlimited - duck hunters - have done great things in wildlife and wetland conservation.

Sure there are retards who think it's impossible for humans to impact the world, but what side doesn't have retards?

Looks good doesn't it.

..

They do, but they're realists and want to solve other matters first without bankrupting the country. Unfortunately, not all these matters are as important.

Neocons are why that happened. Conservative Populists like Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt really cared about preservation of our natural environment. Neocons believe in exploitation.

Why do (((environmentalists))) advocate for solar so much when wind is literally cleaner, safer and cheaper?

Neither wind nor solar are viable methods of energy production. They're just scams to enrich the left's campaign donors at taxpayer expense.

...

Actually in rural areas or for backup supplies they are but yes they arent for total use. Hydro dams and tidal power? Are good as well

Because the Left doesnt like nuclear power

Hydro power is viable. The rest are a scam.

Wind is cheaper than everything except natural gas and subsidized nuclear.

It's also at 7 or 8% of US energy production while solar is like .3%

...

1. Because our government is so big and full of bureaucratic bullshit, it's really easy for big energy lobbies like coal and oil to shape the laws and regulations, turning them in such a way that they have more of an advantage than they would in a fully free market.

2. The methods most "green" liberals suggest for the energy sector have a lot of issues. One that comes to mind is that both solar and wind are expensive as fuck to transfer to due to infrastructural issues and making the parts for them.

3. Meanwhile, nuclear, which has the least amount of deaths per kilowatt of any energy source, even accounting for meltdown disasters, is turned into a boogeyman by people who are "green" despite it being the safest and least troublesome form of energy we have right now when it's done right, especially with new discoveries like thorium reactors.

They are both shit but solar is objectively worse.

Hydropower is not renewable.

But I do. That's why I'm pro nuclear, among other reasons.

...

also, unbeknownst to most solar only powers your heating not your whole house

>Hydropower is not renewable.

Only if the river dries up.

>no source
Nice shitgraph

eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

...

They do. Rednecks are huge into wildlife conservation.

>we need to stop global warming
>destroy rivers to build hydro dams
>destroy deserts to build solar mirrors
>destroy bird migration routes to build wind turbines
>destroy China to build batteries
earth saved

Cheaper with a subsidy. Why not subsidize nuclear?

They want to here, and forced the new goverment to provide more funding for green initiatives compared to what they originally wanted to budget

#gayforPape

Senpais, you guys are fucking idiots that are far behind on science

Dedicated Solar planets are now as cheap as natural gas before subsidies.

shhhhhhh, don't tell them that!
liberals gotta feels super ultra special

see

theodore roosevelt was the opposite of a conservative and richard nixon wasnt much of one either. and bush is a neocon

Because fuck future generations, most of us are r9k faggots who'll never have kids

The bbc meme has come too far

Hydro, and nuclear if we can find a decent way to dispose of waste are the best methods.

Trad cons DO protect the environment.
Neo-cons not so much.
Neo-libs not at all.

Where are the vast untapped resources of hydro power located?

>implying white people aren't a part of nature

It's just American "right wing". Labelism gone crazy, where you have to subscribe to everything on a laundry list, which has been kludged together over years of trying to polarize a voter base. People are short sighted idiotic animals anyway, and it is just so much easier to control everyone if the switch can be thrown back and forth between left and right, dem or rep, pepsi or coke.

...

the literal ocean
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_energy

tidal =/= hydroelectric

tidal also harms tidal ecosystems, and it's really just tertiary solar power

We are so fucked when the oceans collapse. No one cares about coral bleaching. It's all carbon dioxide to them.

Here in the US, because of the two party system, one party scoops up any given issue and portrays the other as the enemy. The truth is that most of us, left right or other, want to conserve the environment. There are differences of degree of course and those who take any moderate path are (ironically) branded as extremists.

Are you a Republican who thinks the new power plant does more environmental damage than it's worth? You must be a tree-hugging hippie. Are you a Democrat who supports a pipeline because you understand that it is a safer way to transport oil than train cars? You're just a pandering Wallstreet elitist.

I've always been puzzled by the inability of the left to apply these same principles of conservation to the economy. Think of the economy as a forest, of taxation as cutting trees or hunting animals, and of debt as pollution. You have to harvest and pollute at sustainable levels; too much will damage the forest and hinder its growth. An extreme amount will cause the forest to shrink or even kill it. Right now, in the US, we're damaging the forest and risk killing it if we continue.

The opposing forces balance themselves out. Ultimately neither side truly knows if their policies are really of net benefit. We do know the extreme of one or the other fucks us bad.

That might be true sometimes. The middle path isn't always best though. It's that two-party mentality again; we assume that each issue has two sides and a spectrum in-between. In reality, most issues have lots of sides and angle.

Take the budget for example: one side wants to expand the military and cut social programs, while the other wants to cut the military and expand social programs. We are told to pick a side. Well, what if we want to cut both? That's just one example, but the general principle holds in many situations.

required viewing
youtube.com/watch?v=u2ll1mzLulc

How much would Niagara falls produce if there were to be set a huge dam and plenty of giganiggawatt turbines.