From wide-spread recycling to a huge "green" sector of the economy to resource sustainability, all of the policies meant to ameliorate global warming are conservative. Why would conservatives oppose them, regardless of what they believe concerning global warming?
2007-11-28 06:34:26 · 11 answers · asked by Whoosh 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
I am conservative. I recycle. I am for reducing pollution. I am against clear cutting forests. I am not against harvesting old growth forests as long as they are replanted. I am against expanding the scope and size of the federal government for most purposes, especially climate changes that we can not control. I am against increasing taxes and carbon offsets.
2007-11-28 06:46:56 · answer #1 · answered by Larry 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Socialists such as Gorbachev have chosen to use the environment as their vehicle to push their agenda. Conservatives should be synonomous with Conservationists but the problem is that the environmentalism has been hijacked by socialism to a large extent. Policies meant to fix global warming such as a carbon tax will discourage and punish consumption of fossil fuels, not necessarily a completely bad thing, and in fact would welcome an increased gas tax if the taxes were reduced in other areas. I would only agree to that because third world oil rich countries have far too much influence and many are our enemies. My main problem is where that revenue is going to go to if they have a carbon tax and my skepticism that it simply will be an excuse to grow government.
2007-11-28 08:07:58 · answer #2 · answered by JimZ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should qualify Global Warming as opposed to 'Man Made Global Warming'.
I have been recycling for decades. Almost every forest today is 'harvested' with replanting dictated by government (which is one of the rare good things government does). For many decades people & corporations have been striving for cleaner products.
Let the FREE market place improve efficiency and reduce LOCAL pollution over very small areas (cities) compared to the VAST LANDMASSES.
If you truly bother to listen to all view points and study the power of nature - you should come to realize that man is almost totally insignificant in comparison.
To expect inefficient, bureaucratic government (what I call GOD = Government Of Decree) to solve your problems is TOTAL FOOLISHNESS - unless you don't value your freedoms.
2007-11-28 07:06:48 · answer #3 · answered by Rick 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow, you have gotten some AWESOME answers. The answer is really in the question: Why support something that they oppose, even IF other conservatives support it? It just doesn't make sense. Do you support the same things your friends support even when your morals/values are different? That would be like a pro-life conservative supporting a pro-abortion bill just because another "conservative" introduces it.
In all honesty, we're not talking conservatives/liberals, we're talking Republicans/Democrats. Unfortunately, there are MANY "Republicans" who aren't conservatives (aka 'RINO's- Republican In Name Only) at all. Conservative Republicans aren't going to support efforts of liberal Republicans.
2007-11-28 08:18:02 · answer #4 · answered by Trouble's Mama 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We're not. That's just a myth. Only the Kennedy's are opposed to wind power. No one else is. Environmentalist oppose Nuclear Power, one of the greenest ways to generate power.
Capitalist and corporations develop pollution control equipment and recycle goods at rates you can't imagine.
They also develop drives and computer controlled processes that allow increased production with lower energy cost.
They develop energy efficient cars.
Who opposes this?
What people oppose is having others tell them what they should do. No one wants people who have specific political slants telling them that they aren't conserving like they should. This is called eco-fascism. Are you for eco-fascism?
2007-11-28 07:10:54 · answer #5 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
To add to all the good answers already given, let's just say the assumption in your post is true (even though it's not), the answer is simply that the word "conservative" as it applies to a political ideology is not to be confused with the word "conservative" in general. Same goes with "liberal".
It's sort of like the word "fan", it has multiple meanings when used in different contexts, as do may English words. In order to understand the English language you have to understand the concept of "context".
2007-11-28 15:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by tool s555 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mainly because it's not a problem that needs fixing. The carbon dioxide "problem" that the panic pedlars are selling is non existant. By the way, the earth is probably getting warmer, or, maybe, cooler, time will tell. We'll have to wait a hundred years or so to find out which, really. Mert
2007-11-28 07:57:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The answer lies in your question.
Why fix it if we don't believe in it?
There are plenty of reasons to recycle, conserve, clean up, etc. Global warming isn't one of them since we're not responsible for it and can't affect it anyway.
2007-11-28 06:57:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i think that the reps are as lame as libs. they cant see the big money schemes the libs are promoting, and how they should be on the wagon. so we can take the winnings and put some reps with balls in office and get rid of all this hippie waste thats there now.
2007-11-28 07:38:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I cannot answer any better than the first response, Larry got it right from my point of view.
2007-11-28 09:00:51 · answer #10 · answered by M S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋