Rise Of The Eco-Right

Newt’s not the only Red turning Green. Suddenly, it’s the latest righty-rage. From Terra Rossa:

I couldn’t agree more with Newt’s position here. I’m a conservative, but I’m also a passionate environmentalist. And it dismays me to see that, somewhere along the way, conservatives wrote themselves out of the environmental debate. I don’t question the motives of my liberal environmentalist friends, but I do question their methods. And I genuinely believe conservatives have something to say on this issue. As a reader recently wrote on this site, conservation is inherently conservative.

It’s time that conservatives and Republicans got involved in the environmental debate. Now more than ever, we need a seat at the table on this issue. It’s good to see that Speaker Gingrich agrees.

Besides, there’s tons of green dough to be made off of all-things-eco. Call your broker now. Full post here.

31 comments

  1. dcraigwhite says:

    there is a tremendous difference between environmentalism and conservation.

    environmentalism is, by definition, a thought system which places equal value on all things, including humans, plants, animals, and even non-living things.

    conservationists believe that human beings are inherently more valuable then plants or animals, and certainly more than non-living things, yet this value carries a responsibility of stewardship.

  2. Green Republicans are nothing new. For the most part, Republicans have been the leaders of the conservation movement. The Young Republican’s Earth Day message this year hit a little on the history of the GOP and the conservation movement.

    http://www.onlineitools.com/nl/nl-output.php?nl_id=46689&bus_id=3050&plain=0

    Also, today, Republican Governor Perdue has launched the Conserve Georgia program which uses 20% public and 80% private funds to find ways to better educate the public on protecting Georgia’s enviornment.

    http://www.conservegeorgia.org.

  3. Green Republicans are nothing new. For the most part, Republicans have been the leaders of the conservation movement. The Young Republican’s Earth Day message this year hit a little on the history of the GOP and the conservation movement.

    http://www.onlineitools.com/nl/nl-output.php?nl_id=46689&bus_id=3050&plain=0

    Also, today, Republican Governor Perdue has launched the Conserve Georgia program which uses 20% public and 80% private funds to find ways to better educate the public on protecting Georgia’s environment.

    http://www.conservegeorgia.org.

  4. Green Republicans are nothing new. For the most part, Republicans have been the leaders of the conservation movement. The Young Republican’s Earth Day message this year hit a little on the history of the GOP and the conservation movement.

    http://www.onlineitools.com/nl/nl-output.php?nl_id=46689&bus_id=3050&plain=0

    Also, today, Republican Governor Perdue has launched the Conserve Georgia program which uses 20% public and 80% private funds to find ways to better educate the public on protecting Georgia’s environment.

    http://www.conservegeorgia.org.

  5. Demonbeck says:

    The biggest difference between the eco-right and eco-left that I have noticed in all my experiences is that the eco-right supports the idea of conservation and protection while also supporting the idea of enjoying nature.

    Members of the eco-right join groups like the Coastal Conservation Association or Ducks Unlimited and continue to fish and hunt.

    Members of the eco-left, meanwhile, support the protection and exclusion of the environment from man. They want to limit man’s ability to enjoy nature unless it is from afar or under the strictest of limitations.

    Members of the eco-right believe that private organizations like those mentioned above can work to protect our resources outside of the government while members of the eco-left want the government to mandate and pay for the preservation and protection of the environment.

    I am not saying which is better, but I believe that it is more important to conserve and preserve than to preserve and protect. If our future generations are not able to grow up enjoying all of the wonders the outdoors can provide, then they will never understand what all the fuss is about.

    Our DNR and the federal FWS and NPS do a wonderful job of granting access to their facilities, however, the DNR does a much much better job of allowing people to enjoy nature. The feds have too many regulations they are required to impose and therefore do not allow much more than some environment to look at.

    I hope ya’ll can pick up what I just put down. I am sure I said something wrong and will now spend the next two hours nitpicking a word choice now.

  6. moocher says:

    Demon-

    You said “the biggest difference” when I think you meant “one of the biggest differences”

  7. Doug Deal says:

    moocher,

    I think that he really only eluded to 2 differences so the proper expression would be “the BIGGER difference”.

    Either way, it invalidates his whole comment.

  8. Kelley says:

    Conservatives should have an awful lot to say about the issue of environmental conservation. What makes it a liberal platform is the fact that is currently limited to an all-or-nothing point of view that does little to make conservation a reality compatible with economic security and a well-functioning government. As it exists today, environmentalism is an “aimless cause” that is fairly typical of many of the disjointed interest groups that get swept up under the wing of the Democratic Party. I applaud Newt and Sonny for taking steps that put them ahead of the game on this front. Public opinion has shifted, and the GOP must too. Environmental consciousness in its purest essence is far more compatible with the basic ideals of the Republican Party than those of the Dems, and heck yes, there’s a great opportunity to make a buck in this sector!

  9. Doug Deal says:

    Kelley,

    I am not sure how much public opinion has “shifted”. Please tell me when the public was ever for polluted waters or smoke filled skies.

    What has come to the foreground lately is evironMENTALS who want to use bad science and fear mongering to further an agenda. When faced with a choice between defending against the latest boogey man and wrecking the US economy, voters will choose jobs and lower taxes.

  10. Kelley says:

    Doug,

    Environmental issues have undeniably become a greater concern to voter groups that are critical to the GOP, particularly younger voters who will constitute the largest group of active voters in coming years.

    I’m not promoting an environmentalist agenda at all, and I have little respect for politicians (cough, Al Gore) who have no knowledge of scientific method yet continue to address the American people and the science community as though they do. Fear mongering is indeed an excellent term for this. I surely hope that voters continue to prioritize job creation and lower taxes, as it’s tough to worry about much else with a collapsing economy at hand. My point, ultimately, is that the two platforms are not mutually exclusive; rather, they will be mutually dependent in the near future. Focusing on alternatives to current methods of production and current fuel sources, for example, promotes entrepreneurship. So long as any efforts that are made to increase environmental conservancy are done so second to limiting government and protecting the most important of public interests, such as the economy, giving greater attention to such issues in future elections might behoove the GOP.

  11. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Nice little rhetorical letter by the chair of the yrs…”eco-republicans” are nothing new, but that is no excuse to jump on the band wagon now.

    Liberal Republicans, who are often called traitors now, have always championed environmentalism and conservation. As has the “left.” This garbage that the Eco-left wants humans out of the environment is total BS.
    We have always wanted the land conserved for recreational use…not merely for it to exist.
    Demonbeck if full of crap.

    Sure whacko groups like Green Peace get a lot of attention,…but do not forget the difference between the two camps. Both camps use nature for recreation…whether it is camping, fishing, hiking or hunting and everything in between.
    There is the science aspect that begets disagreement. The “right” traditionally has had a hands off…”environmental science is junk science and can not be proven” mentality.
    Big deal if those on the left do believe it…they have more documentation and support in the science/academic community on that issue.
    It inevitibly comes down to the business vs. environmentalism paradigm that was brilliantly invented when technology was, what we now consider, primitive.
    That boogeyman that Doug Deal speaks of does not exist. His faction of the GOP believes in borrowing and spending for short term gains…but not investment for the future security of our nation.
    Environmentalim does not have to be bad for business…it can, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
    Clean water, clean air and a few places to get away from the city are important. I applaud Perdue’s [email protected] effort to help out…to bad he had the Oaky woods were sold to a developer rather than Nature Conservancy.
    People like Doug Deal will always tell you that environmentalism is bad for business. Rather than going along because he looks like you, ask why? Deal is not an expert. Neither am I, but I am not preaching anything but tolerance and education.

  12. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I almost forgot…
    Doug and Kelley mention jobs and lower taxes…

    How did we get into this recession again?

    A bunch of ideologue conservatives pretended to be economists.

  13. Goldwater Conservative says:

    who is the real fear monger. Better start telling your representatives to campaign on guns and religion…because you guys, again, can not win the economy argument.

  14. Doug Deal says:

    Nixon Conservative,

    That boogeyman that Doug Deal speaks of does not exist. His faction of the GOP believes in borrowing and spending for short term gains…but not investment for the future security of our nation.

    Yes, you know me so well. If this passes as a test to your degree of accuracy, then we can simply ignore everything you write.

    You know as well as I do that no one is out there championing polluted water. This is not an episode of Captain Planet, where mustached villains sail large ships around the word for the sole purpose of dumping pollution everywhere they go.

    The environmental movement has come down to championing the cause of less energy usage. Not by convincing people to be conservative with their own resources, but by passing laws to change the lifestyle of every man, woman and child. People need cars to go to work, it’s not like people are burning gasoline out back for the fun of it.

    Ethanol is clearly a boondoggle, and even electric cars need generated electricity. Where is that going to come from, if not from coal, when nuclear power has been declared off-limits from the same group of people?

    What is there to replace the automobile? Scientists and engineers do not invent by legislative fiat. If they did, perhaps Congress can pass legislation revoking the first law of thermodynamics as 140% efficient machinery would go a long way in solving every problem we have.

    Hugging trees might make one feel better, but the practicalities of reality need to be considered, unless you want to lead to societal ruin. I am sure the Chinese would love to supplant us at the top of the food chain.

  15. Goldwater Conservative says:

    There you go again Doug. Fearmongering.

    Congress is not passing laws requiring consumers to buy “x.” They are steering manufacturers to do so.

    That is how you get people to do things. Like stopping child labor or creating a minimum wage. Neither of those ideas would naturally occur without intervention.

    Ethanol, for the record, was pushed by the agribusiness lobby. They have an economic interest in its production.

    Polluted water, polluted air, food tainted with growth hormones and fertilizers will put the U.S. into bigger problems than phasing out old inefficient technology will.

  16. Doug Deal says:

    GC,

    We are in agreement about ethanol.

    The problem with the involvement of Congress into what is produced is that they do not know what they are doing and simply adopt the position of the most lucrative lobby. This is why ethanol was introduced, this is why so many failed programs come out of congress.

    The best arbiter of what is right and wrong is the free market, not a bunch of lawyers in Washington.

  17. Dave says:

    We can thank many of the environmental wack jobs on both sides of the aisle for our continued dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We can’t explore for oil in our own damn country and it’s cost the lives of many of our service men. Let us explore for it off of our coasts, in Alaska and in the gulf. Let’s build the needed refineries and nuclear power plants. The greatest national security issue to us in this country is our reliance on foreign sources of energy. We wouldn’t even have to be as involved in the Middle East if we’d only be allowed to harvest our own proven oil sources.

  18. Goldwater Conservative says:

    We are too advanced a nation to leave things to the free market.

    Keynesian econ. is the solution for modern financially backed markets.

    There is nothing wrong with the government steering the economy….just so long as it is not running the economy.

  19. Progressive Dem says:

    Once again Doug and Kelley prove the point that the far-right cannot recognize facts when the facts interupt their political believes. If a conservative idealouge acknowleges global warming, or the harm the unregulated free market can have on the environment, it would reguire them to admit the need for government regulation in the market. Therefore despite the preponderance of evidence and a broad worldwide concensus of scientists about the existence of man-made global warming, the right-wingers stay in denial. It is the same mentality that kept conservatives on the wrong side of civil rights, the 19th Amendment, child labor, the rights of workers to organize, the funding of community colleges and a host of other issues. Conservatism: a proud tradition of rigidity.

  20. Kelley says:

    PD,

    Therefore despite the preponderance of evidence and a broad worldwide concensus of scientists about the existence of man-made global warming, the right-wingers stay in denial.

    I don’t agree that there is even a preponderance of evidence in support of global warming, much less broad worldwide concensus, much less among the scientific community. Taking measures to promote environmental conservation is not inconsistent with my political beliefs, as you will note if you actually read my earlier post, and furthermore, this can best be accomplished through the free market, as is also briefly noted above.

    If you assume that we are on opposite sides of the fence on issues like civil rights, the 19th Amendment, child labor, the rights of workers to organize, and funding of community colleges, Progressive, then you must build your fences arbitrarily.

  21. candlerpark says:

    Yeah, Kelly, et al,

    There is no preponderance of evidence in support of Evolution, either.

    These are just THEORIES, foisted upon is by the lib’ruls.

  22. Bill Simon says:

    DCraig,

    And…I suppose Intelligent Design or Creation Theory explains to us all the clear reason why men have nipples and everyone is born with an appendix?

    Yeah…tell me again WHO is the “weak-minded?”

  23. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Kelley….mans carbon footprint is not present merely in manufacturing and automobiles.

    The cattle industry, for example, leaves a large carbon footprint (as well as other greenhouse gases) than that of all of the automobiles in the U.S.

    Just consider how the introduction of cheatgrass in the mid/southwest changed things. Or an non-endemic specie being introduced for asthetic purposes can affect industry even.

    The lamprey eel being introduced to lakes in New England. Great idea at first. It provided a cheap food source for thousands of newly poor families after the crash in ’29. It also put thousands more people out of business who worked in the fishing industry because of poor planning. The eel was introduced and its offspring proliferated. Depleteing oxygen levels in the waters and killing off carp and other species that could not survive in the new ecosystem that was created by what became the new keystone species.

    Killing off one species or adding a new one changes things drastically. Just like adding different ingredients, or leaving one out, drastically changes a recipe. Like the difference between Irish Whisky and Scotch.

  24. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Well…the Irish do not produce Scotch.

    I fancy some of the older vintages of The Glenrothes (1975-1985)…as well as their single casks. The Glendronach has become popular throughout the UK.

Comments are closed.