Why is conserving the environment considered a liberal policy?

Question

I would consider it a conservative agenda but the conservative republicans portray it as tree hugging liberal ideas. It does force corporations to more accountable. Conserving the environment... and forcing companies to be more accountable for their actions... I would think fits in with conservative republican morals but apparently I am wrong. Why do we have to rely on liberal leadership to conserve our environment?

Answer 1

Mainly because the normal means used to protect the environment result from imposing regulations on business. And the conservative platform generally favors few (if any) regulations on business.

So, it's not the goal of protecting the environment they oppose. It's the way that Democrats (not all liberals) usually try to achieve that.

Many liberals don't try to accomplish the goal through government legislation, and instead try to work within the free market, employing basic principles of capitalism, to give companies a financial incentive to make the changes themself. And that's a model that conservatives (opposed to govt regulation of business) should be able to support as well.

Answer 2

Excellent question!!

Rush Limbaugh actually encourages people to buy SUVs. I simply don't understand that mentality. Why be wasteful? Why spew more pollutants into the air we all have to breathe?

I know why liberals are for environmental laws. Because that advances the Marxist agenda, it dilutes private property laws. If the government can regulate something, they control it.

I'm not that bright, but I can show you how to design a full size car that would get over 100 miles to the gallon. And it's not that complex. All my simplistic ideas employ technology already in use. Nothing "cutting edge" or "still on the drawing board".

Am I the only one in the history of mankind to think of it? Heck no! Why isn't it being brought to market?

One word.

Money.

Oil

Ok, that's two words . . .

Answer 3

The liberals are Environmentalist. Conservatives are conservationalist. The difference is that a conservationalist usually has some training and know what he is talking about. Anyone can be an environmentalist just by saying they care about something.

For instance, environmentalists are agains control hunting of deer, despite the overwhelming evidence that control hunting actually improve the health of the rest of the herd and ensures the continuation of the species. An environmentalist would say that if they all starve to death, then that is just nature taking its course.

Answer 4

fr_chuck is 100% wrong in his answer on this one. The liberal agenda doesn't harm the economy, or fly in the face of common sense. Liberals favor developing alternative fuels. It was one of the main issues Kerry ran on. Doing so would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which would both increase our security and deprive terrorists of their main source of cash.

The GOP alternative? The gave massive tax breaks to ENCOURAGE people to buy gas guzzling SUV's. Bush's spokesperson went on record at the start of Bush's term to say they didn't plan to really plan to support alternative energy, and that they supported America's traditional petroleum-based society. I guess they thought it sounded macho.

Now, let's be honest here, shall we, Fr_Chuck? Which course of action has done the most harm to the economy (not to mention the environment and our national security). Oops. I'm sorry. I said the "H-word". I know how much you conservatives loathe honesty.

Answer 5

because the liberals want to do it, to the harm of the economy or commom sense, Can't drill for oil off shore of most of the US, can't drill for oil in Alaska national park and so on.

Republicans look at it from a balnace "normally" but on the liberal side, it is environment no matter what it does to economy

Answer 6

Conservation isn't putting the woods behind a giant fence, and "protecting" it from public use. Conservation isn't containment.