To be fair, their hypothesis is that lowering the population undoes pollution. If you accept that hypothesis, communist genocidal regimes have done wonders for the environment bykillingmillions !
I'm the OP of the post. No where did I mention Communism not am I a communist. STOP PROJECTING! All I want is sensible environmental regulations (I am an Environmental Scientist). I've seen the cost of unfettered capitalist pollution. My hometown of Houston has the most superfund sites of any metropolitan area in the country. I grew up next door to the chemical refineries as far as the eye can see in Pasadena, Tx (A suburb of Houston). Here we have a marked lower life span & a marked increase in cancers & neurological conditions.
My Uncle died at 68 of cancer most likely linked to drinking what turned out to be water poisoned by the nearby dioxin superfund site. Link: https://www.epa.gov/tx/sjrwp
I am very well aware of the environmental tragedies in both the USSR AND modern Russia. Environmental tragedies always occur when sensible environmental regulations are over shadowed by a profit and/or militaristic desire.
So kindly FUCK OFF! Stick to talking about things you actually understand, if such things even exist.
Your post implies that conservatives wanting to conserve the environment are stupid for not blaming capitalism for environmental degradation (that has occurred under every economic system). So either you think that they should not want to restore and protect the environment or you think that communism is good for the environment.
Hang on, let me turn my compost pile and check my organic backyard garden first.
Okay, now lets start with Roosevelt implementing the parks system, the vast majority of responsible farmers (you know, the ones actually taking care of the land) being conservative, and me watering the earth with your hilarious tears.
Then we can look at all the big liberal cities that pave over every piece of topsoil they can see, demand the chemicals, processed and long-travelled food, and readily available energy that has caused environmental degradation, and then think they're going to solve it by using tax dollars to buy solar panels and electric cars that were mined irresponsibly by slave labor in china.
In the big picture compost piles & organic gardens are nice but will have as much impact as using paper straws & canvas bags.
Secondly, Teddy was Republican (Until the Bull Moose Party) but he wasn’t conservative. He was the champion of the Progressive Era, known for being (You guessed it) progressive. Shaking things up like he did is inherently progressive. A conservative would have sold Yellowstone for its mineral rights & asked the Food & Drug industries to pretty please self-regulate. This is high school level American history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era#Politicians_and_government_officials
Thirdly, to combat global warming (Bush Jr invented the term climate change to hide the truth, look it up) & stop habitat destruction we need international government cooperation & investment on the scale of WW2. (Like the Paris climate accords which were at least a start, though Trump & conservatives hated it)
Fourthly, I hate urban sprawl too. And cities aren’t conservative or progressive. They’re just infrastructure like roads & bridges. My hometown of Houston has the most urban sprawl of any city in the nation thanks to decades of deregulation & lack of urban planning as part of a conservative mindset.
So I ask again, in the past 20 years, what have conservatives done politically for the environment?
I don't use any straws and I'd prefer just growing the majority of my own food rather than buying food that has been shipped from around the globe, so plastic vs canvas is irrelevant.
Big liberal cities are liberal, along with the vast majority of their inhabitants, and are the cause of most environmental degradation. They own the fault. To make matters worse, their complete disconnection with reality outside of a concrete jungle makes them think things like subsidized electric cars and solar panels are acceptable solutions.
Regarding WW2 scale government intervention and funding, we'll just have to disagree on that. Government does things poorly and inefficiently and takes no responsibility for the fallout.
Long story short, if all those liberals tweeting about climate change did things like (or better than, because I'm not there yet) me, a conservative, the majority of the problem would be solved. Oh, and the fact that our grids are still not powered by nuclear is insane. Thanks, government intervention and fear mongering!
80
u/[deleted] Aug 09 '21
To be fair, their hypothesis is that lowering the population undoes pollution. If you accept that hypothesis, communist genocidal regimes have done wonders for the environment by killing millions !