While Liberals tend to congregate in the cities, Conservatives dominate this nation’s rural areas. We enjoy wide-open spaces where we camp, hunt, fish and teach our children about nature. Thus it really does not square that we are anti-environment and most rational people understand this. So let’s deal with the common-sense Liberal who understands that we do indeed care about the environment but wonders, in frustration, why we do not get on the environmental bandwagon.
There are really two reasons for this. The first is we believe most of the “science” that says our earth is in grave jeopardy is wrong or at best unproven. The second is that history has shown that environmentalism is an invaluable tool in the crisis toolbox. The Nazis (who were big environmentalists) used to say “the common good supercedes the private good” and used this to justify the state’s intervention into the lives of its citizens. Government action in the name of “good things” is always and everywhere justified. That is the argument behind almost every violation of the rights of the American people since our founding.
A populace will not give up their liberties over a simple, curable problem. Contributions and grants dry up for scientists who find that everything is proceeding normally. Thus Liberals must manufacture one global crisis after another, and let’s face it, there is money to be made in doing so. But Chicken Little has been warning us that the sky is falling for far too long now. Too many of their predictions have been wrong. This constant crying wolf has really hurt the environmental cause. It is now becoming difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and the skeptic asks — which environmental problems are legitimate?
This newest crisis of global warming (or is it now global climate change?) is a goldmine for Libs as its intrusive tentacles reach into everything we do, from what we eat, to what we wear, to where we go and how we get there. Liberals insist that the debate is over and we must get beyond politics because scientists now agree (despite the petition signed by over 31,000 scientists denying man-made global warming) and that if we disagree, we are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers. Here they are trying to save the WORLD, the very human race, and we are standing in their way!
But not all Liberals approach us from such a hostile direction. Instead they give us the “why not?” argument. Not content to simply make changes in their own lives, they have the burden of spreading their enlightenment to the rest us with dictates under the “better safe than sorry” theory. There can be no harm in making these environmental policy changes right? Wrong. Let’s go over some of the tragedies that have been caused by caving in to environmental whims, and these are just a few:
* After banning the pesticide DDT (even though no study has ever shown it to be harmful to humans), there was a resurgence of malaria in poor countries that killed millions of people.
* Nuclear power, among the cleanest and most cost-efficient energy sources, has been severely diminished in America, not because of sound science, but instead because of radical environmentalists.
* The government-dictated preference for corn-based ethanol and other biofuels is causing land overuse and skyrocketing food prices, harming the poorest among us the most.
* Liberal management programs in the Forest Service and National Parks have led to major wildfires, including the near-catastrophic fire in Yellowstone.
* The Endangered Species Act actually increases the threat of wildlife extinction – while private approaches have helped species recover all over the world.
After reading these, you may once again spot the Achilles heel of most Liberal ideas. That’s right, the Law of Unintended Consequences. And not even listed above are the tremendous monetary costs associated with this constant liberal meddling. But wait, we are never to look at the results of these policies, we must only look at the good intentions. At the end of the day, it matters little how passionate they are for their cause if they haven’t the slightest clue how to serve that cause effectively.
Conservatives believe that a responsible stewardship of the earth need not compete with free market principles. Investments and advancements in alternative energy will go on without government subsidies, and will be adopted worldwide when they begin to make economic sense, and not a moment before. We cannot control every country in the world and the treaties we are always pushed to sign penalize our industries the most. The other parties to the treaties, such as China or Russia, may or may not honor their pledges and there is little anybody can do about it. Meanwhile, we have cut the legs out from under American manufacturers.
This is not to say that Conservatives believe there can be no government at all in the solution. Tax breaks are a nice incentive. The Clean Air Act has been a success, perhaps because each state is in charge of overseeing it, as opposed to a federal bureaucracy. We need to be working to strengthen private property rights instead of weakening them, as they can be vital to the proper maintenance of ecological systems.
As for global warming, even if we agree that the earth is indeed warming, there is a great deal of controversy over whether man has had anything to do with it. And there is even more controversy over whether man can halt or slow it in any significant way. So before we allow Liberals to pour our money down another sinkhole and create yet more problems in their attempt to solve this one, let’s hold back until we know more. In the meantime, allow the free markets to innovate and help us to adapt to our changing environment.