Why is it that so many conservatives are no longer interested in conserving natural resources?

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Greed
 
Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Roosevelt was a progressive, not a conservative. Furthermore, no one "embraces" destruction of our natural environment, but eliminating the last 0.000000000000001% of mercury from Coal emissions isn't worth the $500 billion cost. Only left-wing imbeciles believe that cost is not an issue when it comes to cutting pollution.

By today's standards, even Reagan can't truly be considered a conservative.

BS

It's absolutely true.
 
Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Roosevelt was a progressive, not a conservative. Furthermore, no one "embraces" destruction of our natural environment, but eliminating the last 0.000000000000001% of mercury from Coal emissions isn't worth the $500 billion cost. Only left-wing imbeciles believe that cost is not an issue when it comes to cutting pollution.

By today's standards, even Reagan can't truly be considered a conservative.

BS

It's absolutely true.

I'd ask you to explain your logic, but you're an idiot.
 
Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Roosevelt was a progressive, not a conservative. Furthermore, no one "embraces" destruction of our natural environment, but eliminating the last 0.000000000000001% of mercury from Coal emissions isn't worth the $500 billion cost. Only left-wing imbeciles believe that cost is not an issue when it comes to cutting pollution.

By today's standards, even Reagan can't truly be considered a conservative.

BS

It's absolutely true.


what is also true is that by today's standards Kennedy would be a conservative.
 
Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?
Conservative want to conserve the feudal form of government; Princes and paupers, lords share croppers, etc.
Teddy R was a RINO, in truth he was progressive. Not a good example of conservative goals.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,
 
Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely setting aside public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't a conservative, he was a progressive.

Nor is every dem a progressive. And there are many brands of progressive thought that can in no way be considered progress, but more like a drag on society.

What so called progressives have to offer needs to be looked at on a case by case basis so we can weed out all the crazy before moving forward.
 
Nor is every dem a progressive. And there are many brands of progressive thought that can in no way be considered progress, but more like a drag on society.

What so called progressives have to offer needs to be looked at on a case by case basis so we can weed out all the crazy before moving forward.

Most people nowadays don't truly understand dichotomy of conservatism vs progressivism, or the historical context of it. There are no real conservatives nor progressives today, in the context of Roosevelt's time.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

As opposed to the lie in your second sentence, i.e. the absolutism thereof.

Having it both ways: Priceless.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

As opposed to the lie in your second sentence, i.e. the absolutism thereof.

Having it both ways: Priceless.


Pollution does not cause the climate of planet earth to change. Pollution causes dirty air, water, and land. It has zero effect on climate.

60 years ago the great lakes were so polluted nothing could live in them, now they are clean and full of fish. explain what climate changes were directly caused by those polluted lakes 60 years ago.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

As opposed to the lie in your second sentence, i.e. the absolutism thereof.

Having it both ways: Priceless.


Pollution does not cause the climate of planet earth to change. Pollution causes dirty air, water, and land. It has zero effect on climate.

60 years ago the great lakes were so polluted nothing could live in them, now they are clean and full of fish. explain what climate changes were directly caused by those polluted lakes 60 years ago.

Sorry, I just don't possess the arrogance to declare I know all of that despite the fact that in the perspective of the Universe my species has been here a nanofraction of an eyeblink.

You, however, apparently do.

Hence my point. Hypocrisy.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

As opposed to the lie in your second sentence, i.e. the absolutism thereof.

Having it both ways: Priceless.


Pollution does not cause the climate of planet earth to change. Pollution causes dirty air, water, and land. It has zero effect on climate.

60 years ago the great lakes were so polluted nothing could live in them, now they are clean and full of fish. explain what climate changes were directly caused by those polluted lakes 60 years ago.

Sorry, I just don't possess the arrogance to declare I know all of that despite the fact that in the perspective of the Universe my species has been here a nanofraction of an eyeblink.

You, however, apparently do.

Hence my point.


You just made my point. The climate of our planet has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, it will be changing hundreds of millions of years from now. Man has never, and never will, have anything to do with it.



The prophet algore LIED to you. He lied to you to make himself rich, and you bought it. What does that say about you?
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

Humans are never going to stop polluting under any circumstances because waste byproducts are the end result of mining, refining, and using natural resources and the manufacturing process. The trick is to minimize the impact through wise use management and also to find uses for the waste or to reintegrate them into the natural environment in a considerably less destructive manner.

Here's the point that seems to be lost on cons who have a difficult time understanding concepts. And excess of anything can potentially be destructive. Take water for example. It's necessary for life. But too much water can ruin crops, overwhelm treatment plants, cause floods and mudslides and devastate a community. The same is true of gases like carbon dioxide. Too much CO2 in your home could render you unconscious and even kill you. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. It's science 101.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

Humans are never going to stop polluting under any circumstances because waste byproducts are the end result of mining, refining, and using natural resources and the manufacturing process. The trick is to minimize the impact through wise use management and also to find uses for the waste or to reintegrate them into the natural environment in a considerably less destructive manner.

Here's the point that seems to be lost on cons who have a difficult time understanding concepts. And excess of anything can potentially be destructive. Take water for example. It's necessary for life. But too much water can ruin crops, overwhelm treatment plants, cause floods and mudslides and devastate a community. The same is true of gases like carbon dioxide. Too much CO2 in your home could render you unconscious and even kill you. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. It's science 101.

Another horrid far left analogy being used.

Human CO2 accounts for less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, that is failure of epic proportions when using such a horrid analogy.
 
Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

Because setting aside public land for "preservation" has gone to an extreme and has become a tool of the left to prohibit any and all development activity on public land.

That's the whole point of preservation, dufus.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

Humans are never going to stop polluting under any circumstances because waste byproducts are the end result of mining, refining, and using natural resources and the manufacturing process. The trick is to minimize the impact through wise use management and also to find uses for the waste or to reintegrate them into the natural environment in a considerably less destructive manner.

Here's the point that seems to be lost on cons who have a difficult time understanding concepts. And excess of anything can potentially be destructive. Take water for example. It's necessary for life. But too much water can ruin crops, overwhelm treatment plants, cause floods and mudslides and devastate a community. The same is true of gases like carbon dioxide. Too much CO2 in your home could render you unconscious and even kill you. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. It's science 101.

Another horrid far left analogy being used.

Human CO2 accounts for less than 1% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, that is failure of epic proportions when using such a horrid analogy.

Like many things it's the power of small concentrations of greenhouse gases that's at the heart of the problem.
 
To the OP. Pollution is bad, we should stop polluting the planet.

pollution does not cause climate change, it causes dirty air and water.

climate is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis, and ocean currents---none of which can be affected by man.

if you libs want a cause, make it pollution, but don't continue the lie about man made climate change.,

Humans are never going to stop polluting under any circumstances because waste byproducts are the end result of mining, refining, and using natural resources and the manufacturing process. The trick is to minimize the impact through wise use management and also to find uses for the waste or to reintegrate them into the natural environment in a considerably less destructive manner.

Here's the point that seems to be lost on cons who have a difficult time understanding concepts. And excess of anything can potentially be destructive. Take water for example. It's necessary for life. But too much water can ruin crops, overwhelm treatment plants, cause floods and mudslides and devastate a community. The same is true of gases like carbon dioxide. Too much CO2 in your home could render you unconscious and even kill you. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. It's science 101.

I look to your post and want to scream.

I have worked so long to make conservation a joy for people. You just are a piss off asshole.

First thing you do is get rid of people. you insult people. special.and all you want to do is insult anyone who could even come close to you.
 

Forum List

Back
Top