| View Blog
|
|
|
|
| Conservative Enviromentalism |
It seems common that whenever two opposing groups have been arguing long enough, the purpose of argument is lost and opposition becomes automatic: not for what is said, but for who said it. The opposing groups than continue to react to each other, until the original purpose of the groups themselves is lost. This is the danger of seeing things only one way or another. I am conservative in most regards, I love the enviroment. I do not believe in global-warming. I still want to "go green".
When the government goes green, just like when they do anything else. There is always a catch. Sometimes the catch is accepting faulty science on the basis of its popularity over the basis of its truth. Sometimes the catch is that in order to enforce this law, our rights must be ignored. We have the right to own what we have have honestly earned or been given. This includes land. We have the right to do what we please with that which we own, so long as we are not harming others, or their property. Many enviromental laws however ignore this. The fourth amendment (right to be secure in your house and property) means nothing if the EPA or to be fair Homeland Security think otherwise.
When a politically right leaning person who believes in property rights sees this, it becomes understandable to oppose laws coming from self-proclaimed enviromentally friendly politicians, that violate property rights. Sadly, I have not seen any proof of very many right-wingers using this as reasoning against going green. In fact, I have seen a few right-wingers even go out of their way to avoid looking like "one of dem thar tchree-huuggers". This is what I was talking about in my first paragraph. Thank god, that there are still conservatives who actually think about why they oppose certain beliefs, but the negative does still happen, and I find it embarassing.
The key thing that is missed here, is that the original point of conservatism was supposed to be small government, individual sovereignty, a genuine free-market and less if any taxes. NOT that self-proclaimed conservative politicians ever (exept in rare exceptions) do this, but for those of us who really do believe in those principles enviromentalism and conservatism can and I believe should go hand in hand.
Picture not being charged for water or electricity. No government restrictions on how you use it on your property because you are the one producing and storing it. That means less reliance on your money, freeing up that money to be saved for large investments or spent on the market. What about growing your own food, and on top of that algae biodiesel? Same benefits and than some, put it in an automated greenhouse and now you are less reliant on foreign goods.
This is a more survivalist approach to going green. It is empowering, and best of all, rather than demanding that somebody else like government use other peoples money (or your own) in a way that you might not see as best, to fix the problem you are personally managing the problems that you see. Conservatives often want more economic value, having the understanding that the better the economy the less desperate people will be, and the less desperate they are, the lower crime will be. The big government way of being enviromentally friendly however ends up being counter-productive to these means. The promoted idea of expensive recycle, when there are better ways to recycle. For example, if building restrictions would be relaxed plastic bags and thrown out paper could both be used to insulate homes, or we could see more homes like the earthships.
As it stands, conservatives are more known for asking for more oil, than for empowering the individual. If we as conservatives do not want big brother stepping in and managing these issues than we gain the responsibility of doing the good ourselves. If conservatives address the issue of going green properly than the state will lose its justification for expansion under the guise of enviromentalism, prosperity through individual empowerment will be increased, and we as a nation become less susceptible to embargos which could be used to threaten our security and sovereignty.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Views: 46
Email This to a Friend 
