Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Who controls the environmental debate?

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 12:44 a.m.

    "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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 16, 2014 5:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 16, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 16, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    "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 years.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon

    There is always the great run state of California to move to. Lots of recycling bins there.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    "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 conserving anything.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    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!"

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    @happy2bhere
    clearfield, UT
    Open Minded Mormon

    There 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 default....

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 16, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    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!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    @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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 16, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    May 16, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    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 demonization.

  • oldfatguy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    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!

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    May 16, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    I'm a fiscal and social conservative but I no longer consider myself a Republican because of issues like this.

  • JP Chandler, AZ
    May 16, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    @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 your question.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    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.

  • bobdc6 park city, UT
    May 16, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    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.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    @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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    May 17, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    The progress of man has taken the paradise.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 17, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 17, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2014 12:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 18, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    @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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    May 18, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    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."

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 19, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    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.

    =========

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @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.