Biased news reports and mindless Regressive propaganda routinely support the notion that conservatives are anti-environment. Can we pause the rhetoric for a moment and think logically? If conservatives intend to destroy the earth, and succeed, where will conservatives live? This Regressive allegation is nonsense, appealing only to the vacuous mind. 

It is a conservative principle to use resources wisely, not wastefully. Compare the word “conservation” to “conservatism”. Both are rooted in the preservation and protection of that which exists. Thus it’s natural for conservatives to exercise judgment when managing resources. When environmental debates arise, conservatives will examine the various arguments and produce a viable, rational conclusion. Take climate change for instance. Conservatives see the issue without the green-colored glasses the Regressives favor.

I will say, with full confidence, that conservatives have no intention of cutting down the last tree or poisoning the sole remaining stream. There’s no right-wing plot, latent or overt, designed to foul the lone uncontaminated particle of air or consume the final bite of food with no thought for the future. 

Charging conservatives with anti-environmentalism is actually paradoxical. It’s an endorsement of conservatism if we are as destructive to the environment as Regressives claim. Everyone, regardless of political ideology, needs air to breathe and water to drink. If conservatives have learned to live without these necessities then we can certainly devise a more innovative course for America than can the Regressives. 

As for the Regressives themselves, are they really concerned with the environment? Or are they simply using environmentalism as a bridge toward greater statism? If enough people become convinced that using natural resources–oil, coal, trees, fish, whatever–is environmentally destructive, then the power of government can be exercised to “protect” those resources from “exploitation.” Property rights then decline in direct proportion to government’s ascent. 

The only viable option for protecting natural resources, according to the green activist, is placing them off limits. Thus Regressives oppose environmentally dependent industries with fervor akin to how Nazis opposed Jewish shopkeepers, with the hunting, coal, oil and timber industries centered in their crosshairs. Using a natural resource often means wading through a maze of bureaucratic regulations. These positions render Regressives the worst enemies of the causes they claim to defend. 

For instance, sport hunters have a vested interest in protecting wildlife and habitat. Without both there’s no game to hunt or fish to catch. Therefore sportsmen pay excise taxes on their equipment, benefiting both game and non-game species. Timber companies are idle without an abundant supply of mature timber. Thus common sense demands that the timber industry replant the forests they harvest. 

Successful environmental dogma depends on a lack of analysis from its disciples. Only a complete idiot would believe that conservatives intend to destroy natural resources and render the earth uninhabitable. Maybe that’s why the notion is so popular among Regressives.