"The problem is that the far left has hijacked the environmentalist movement
and made it practically impossible for clear thinking and reasonable people to
join in. "From my perspective the far left has not taken over
the environmental movement at all. Leftists like me are more concerned with
labor issues than the environment. I myself have not joined any of the
environmental organizations because they don't understand the economic
trade offs in environmental remediation. So though I'm a leftist, most of
the environmental organizations are too extreme for me!So I
understand your inability to feel at home in these groups. Don't take a
broad brush to the political left.
Re: ". . . the environment is too important to be left in the care of
radical environmentalists."Hear, hear!The
"environmental movement" actually has very little to do with the
environment. Rather, it has become both a refuge, and a front for radical,
iconoclastic socialists, unwilling to admit that their true passion is the
destruction of the American economy and way of life.Had they been
born in another place and time, they'd likely have embraced anarchism,
national socialism, or bolshevism as their "cause." Any of
those would work for them, since their real passion self-validation, through
control of others.
While I agree that environmental issues are often seen as "liberal" and
that conservatives and liberals should work together for their collective
self-interest, I'm not sure "radicals" have hijacked the
environmental movement.What I see is that conservatives have adopted
some key values that run counter to solving environmental issues -- namely, the
need for COLLECTIVE ACTION, which runs against conservatives' beliefs in
"freedom" and "hatred of more government." Whenever I read an
anti-environmental opinion by a conservative, it typically shifts into an
argument, not about the environmental issue, but that solving it requires
socialism or loss of humanity's freedom. Another conservative
value that is challenged by solving environmental issues is BUSINESS AS USUAL.
That is, conservatives love setting carbon on fire, the freedom to
pollute, and foisting business "externalities" onto society to manage
(e.g., government bailout of clean up of Gulf oil spill, ObamaCare for sick
people impacted by toxins released into the environment from businesses, etc.).
Solving environmental issues requires businesses to take
responsibility for those externalities, and that costs money, hurting profits.
If environmentalism can be shown to advance FREEDOM and BOOST
PROFITS for business, we'd see more conservatives onboard.
Well, Republicans have changed over the years.Today, they are
radical and extreme, and see anything "enviromental",
"green", "good for the Earth", or "praiseworthy" as
evil.When we moved to Utah, my kids were bullied at school - and
called and labeled "Tree Huggers" in a derogatory way, for years -
simply for asking were the "recycling" bins were.So, Democrats do not even need to do anything, they just need to
"show-up" and take credit.
The real solution is at the end of the article. "Think globally and act
locally"The problem is that control freaks, including
liberals/democrats/socialists, don't trust the next locality over to do
exactly what they want them to. So they get the biggest club they can find, the
federal government, to beat them into submission.The individuals
behaving this way are called control freaks and abusers. But when it is the
government acting like a control freak, we call it fascism.
"The problem is that the far left has hijacked the environmentalist movement
and made it practically impossible for clear thinking and reasonable people to
join in. "======= hijacked NOTHING!There
is NO debate.Conservatives [who "conserve" what?] simply walked
away from all things enviroment, and castigate and stereotype anyone trying to
something good or right as evil.There is no global warming.There is no pollution.Get rid of the EPA.If the EPA is for it,
then I'm against it!Let businesses put up billboards, Let
business build in wetlands, let companies dump into rivers and streams.Let people throw trash on the highways.De-regulate emission controls.Stop "forcing" emission inspections.Put lead back into
gasoline.Stericycle, refineries or Kennecott should not be held
responsible for the toxins they release.This herz 'Merka,
it's a free country 'taint it. Stop letting Government tell me
what to do!Drill baby drill, Burn baby burn.It's beyond silly.Like a 2 year throwing a tantrum, just
ignore them - and walk away.Like I said -- my kids wanted to
know where the recycle bins were at school, and the bullying went on for
Open Minded MormonThere is always the great run state of California
to move to. Lots of recycling bins there.
"It has become a false religion where the organization and obedience to
dogma is supreme to the cause."This is a spot-on description of
the Republican Party. Unintentional but apt.I also agree with Open
Minded Mormon: its highly ironic that the conservative movement is so against
Only in the imagination of a right wing radical are today's timid efforts
to regulate the amount of poison that industry pumps into our air and water
considered "radical." Been to West Virginia lately?Today's incarnation of conservatives are on the back of a train speeding
out of a station and thinking to themselves, "Wow, that train station is
really moving fast!"
Reading about Teddy Roosevelt one would have to come to the conclusion that he
would not be Republican in today's GOP party. Republicans turned their
back on the environment in support of a few quick dollars. While I can't
always agree with the national conservation groups, their intentions are
honarble which is more than we can say about conservative spokesman like Cliven
Bundy, San Juan county commisioners or Ken Ivory.
@happy2bhereclearfield, UTOpen Minded MormonThere is
always the great run state of California to move to. Lots of recycling bins
there.8:12 a.m. May 16, 2014======== Wow -
that must be some sort of new record happy2bhere -- 1 minute for the
canned "If you don't like, leave" stand answer by
"conservatives".How about something like:ya, Utah is a
beautiful.We love it here, and want to keep it looking pretty, and
CLEAN.But - nah -- if you don't it, leave.Good answer.And you guys wonder WHY you loose the environmental "debate" by
This editorial sites AL Gore as the only example of "radical
environmentalists" and is so so general and non specific in its vilification
of environmentalists that I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about.Is he talking about global warming, or air pollution, or exploding rail
cars, or what?Maybe he doesn't remember rivers catching on
fire, or having to turn on our windshield wipers on while driving through Utah
County because of Geneva air pollution, maybe he wants to put lead back in
gasoline.If he wants to make a valid point we need less sweeping
accusations, and more specific examples of these extreme tree huggers!
@procuradorfiscal"unwilling to admit that their true passion is the
destruction of the American economy and way of life."Or maybe
they just don't have that as a passion and that's why they won't
"admit" it... can't think of anything at the Global Change and
Sustainability Center Symposium that had to do with "destroying the American
economy and way of life", it was just research related to climate. But there
are people who look at the word sustainability and immediately run towards
Agenda 21 conspiracy nonsense.
Republicans must be very very careful to never get the least amount of mud on
bottom of the their skirts...or their "Puritan" friends and
neighbors will drown them for witchcraft.
A tip for the author: Arguments are more persuasive when they avoid employing
the very attributes they condemn. So next time, don't demonize liberals
over the conservation debate if your point is that the debate must rise above
I would still like to hear a believable explanation from a "Global Warming
Expert" why when Leif Erickson settled Southern Greenland in about 1100 it
was warm, green and inviting. His biggest problem was his sheep where getting
sick from all the grass. Could what they believe to be warming can be the earth
returning to it's condition then? Computer models are worthless old
expression from the begining of computers, Garbage in, Garbage out! Properly
programed a computer can come up with any results desired!
I'm a fiscal and social conservative but I no longer consider myself a
Republican because of issues like this.
@oldfatguy "I would still like to hear a believable explanation..."If you're serious about your desire to educate yourself on the
subject, Google "Greenland used to be green". The first hit will answer
Let's be real, just for a moment: Teddy Roosevelt would be run out of
today's GOP. Creating the national parks would today be viewed
as a "total federal takeover", much like the creation of the Grand
Canyon National Park was vigorously resisted by the locals at that time, along
with just about all the National monuments and National Parks in Utah.
Mr.Bouchelle is looking in the wrong place for the answer to "Who controls
the environmental debate". All he has to do is look to the ones doing the
most harm to the environment, the ones who control the direction of
congressional legislation on things environmental, the ones whose bottom line is
affected negatively by laws passed to protect the environment, the same ones who
have done the most damage to the environment over the past century. He
complains about radicals taking over the Sierra Club while remaining silent
about environmental damagers taking over the Congressional Club. I think that
the answer to his question is clear, MONEY controls the environmental debate. He
should continue his writing with this in mind.
If you think environmentalism has been hijacked by radicals it is the fault of
the inaction of conservatives. Libertarian and Tea Party Republicans have made
environmentalism as dirty a word as the word liberal. Why haven't
conservatives, who do believe in protecting the environment, created their own
organizations? If anyone advocates environmental protection, even a more
moderate version, it is political suicide within their ranks. Teddy Roosevelt
embraced Progressivism. He represented the liberal wing of the Republican Party.
There is no such thing today. He made a compromising alliance with Muir of the
Sierra Club. It was only in the 1920s that the party became more conservative
and the Progressive Movement was "hijacked" by the Democrats. FDR said
after the election of 1920 that the Democrats must be, in the future, the party
of progressive thought.
Re: "Maybe he doesn't remember rivers catching on fire, or having to
turn on our windshield wipers on while driving through Utah County . . .
."Face it -- there are very, very few of us still alive that can
remember those things.And, it's because people -- mostly
Republicans -- took wise action to alleviate those problems. That action worked,
and mostly, they no longer exist.But, victory is never enough for
the leftist victimization industry. They've learned never to take
"yes" for an answer. They needs continuing crises and "causes,"
in order to justify their continued existence. Leftist radicals in the
victimization industry are now inexplicably demanding that we surrender way more
freedoms and way more treasure to address today's miniscule non-issues,
than we ever did to clean up those those serious problems, when they actually
existed.In other words, it's not about the environment. Rather,
it's a Cloward-Piven scam to collapse the economy, in the callow, demented
hope that it will be replaced by something better. And that, in their brave new
radical world, radicals will be in charge.It won't work. Never
has. Never will.
@procuradorfiscal"And, it's because people -- mostly Republicans
-- took wise action to alleviate those problems. That action worked, and mostly,
they no longer exist."Thanks to the EPA and regulations,
and while Republicans did institute a sizable chunk of that, they're the
ones who want to undo it now.
The progress of man has taken the paradise.
Re: ". . . Republicans . . . [are] the ones who want to undo it
now."I've not heard of a single Republican wanting to undo
the considerable environmental cleanup that has occurred, most of it with their
support.There are, though, plenty of conservatives who don't
allow their considerable passion for the environment to overwhelm their common
scientific and fiscal sense, or their love of America and freedom.Unlike most liberals.
Maybe LDS Liberal would like to tell us why he works for the Department of
Defense which has polluted more of the west desert than anyone or anything else.
Maybe he would like to explain the toxic waste soaking the ground around the
huge Air Force Base in Ogden. When we accept money from someone to
pay for our home, our cars, our food and our clothing, doesn't that mean
that we agree with what they do and how they do it?Look at others
who think nothing of "using" our wilderness for their personal pleasure.
Robert Redford uses our mountains as his personal playground. Because he has a
helicopter, he shouted loud and long to keep us mere mortals from improving the
road through "his" canyon.Look at a list of top contributors
to the Sierra Club and see how they make their fortunes. They pollute. They
destroy land and oceans all over the world so that they can use Utah for their
own playground.If they don't live here, they shouldn't
have a voice.
The notion that environmentalists are leftists is a daytime talk radio fiction.
Whenever I talk to environmentalists I find that I, as a Marxist, have little in
common and less to talk about. I wish more environmentalists were on the left,
but they aren't.I respect environmentalists but as a socialist
I understand that first and foremost people have to work and people have to eat.
@procuradorfiscal"I've not heard of a single Republican wanting
to undo the considerable environmental cleanup that has occurred, most of it
with their support."What do you think will happen if you get rid
of the EPA and reduce regulations that conservatives say harm businesses? More
air pollution. Less care about spills by Duke Energy in North Carolina. Less
concern about the train cars that have been problematic of late. Why should they
care as much if standards are lessened and enforcement is reduced?
Re: "The notion that environmentalists are leftists is a daytime talk radio
fiction."That'll certainly come as a surprise to leftist
tree huggers.I know that the personal agenda of many posters --
including me, of course -- is to present our point of view in the best possible
light. But, to suggest that no true marxist is an environmentalist stretches it
a bit.Most radical environmentalists are clearly leftist,
Cloward-Piven disciples, whose fondest hope is to collapse our freedom and
capital-based economy and substitute a marxist/leninist, collectivist state.I think, by nearly all accepted definitions -- including that of the
radicals -- that constitutes a left-of-center "philosophy."
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahMaybe LDS Liberal would like to tell
us why he works for the Department of Defense which has polluted more of the
west desert than anyone or anything else. Maybe he would like to explain the
toxic waste soaking the ground around the huge Air Force Base in Ogden. ========= I work at HAFB for 50% what I'd make in the
civilian market because I love my Country.What is YOUR excuse.BTW - HAFB has done MORE to clean up the environment that any other
major industry in the State.You live by Kennecott.
@Open Minded Mormon,Talking about a 2 year old throwing a tantrum...
re-read your 8:11 post. That's exactly what I was thinking when reading
it, and then ironically you brought it up (and foisted it on somebody else, but
that post was the best example of a tantrum I've read to that point).I think the "Republican Party" has changed over the years. But
IMO being "Conservative" hasn't changed. It means you Conserve
things (money, energy, time, conservative about how quickly our culture changes,
etc).So you need to differentiate between "Conservative" and
"Republican" when you talk about issues like these... and not just paint
them all with the same broad brush.
@10CC,I'm a Conservative... and I don't disprove of the
National Parks. So much for your trying to paint people with your broad brush
rhetoric.I approve of what Teddy Roosevelt did (in creating National
Parks to preserve them). Kinda disproves your assumption that I would run him
out for doing it...===Assumptions are rarely good. And
especially faulty when they are based on partisan rhetoric and broad-brush
assumptions that all people and things fit your stereotypes for them.