Living in Europe, I see what seems to me is a total difference to the United States in the way energy consompution is viewed by the population in general. Hallways often have lights with timers, cars are smaller, etc. etc. I don’t mean to imply that Europe is perfect in its energy consumption, but I would be willing to bet that per capita the average european consumes FAR less energy than the average american.
What I don’t understand is why being concerned about the environment and energy consumption is almost laughable to many people. I come from South Carolina, and I’m forever amazed at the amount of people who express romantic views of nature, of going out kayaking or fishing in the wilderness, then turn and laugh at someone who says we shouldn’t leave our TVs on when we’re not at the house, that maybe shops shouldn’t keep their lights on all night, or that people are overeacting when they say water is precious. These same people that love to go out to the country and spend time with nature often call the people who want to protect nature “tree huggers.”
I’m just curious why this is, why conservatives tend not to be on the environmental protection bandwagon. I know some people will say it’s got a lot to do with business and lobbies, but isn’t there so much information out there these days that protecting the environment is in the best interests for businesses because it cuts costs in the future which in turn leads to more efficient expenditures?
I think it comes from a perception that modern environmental activists are urban people who prefer animals and plants over rural people. In other words, people who would push to shut down the mill and put half the town out of work in order to save a particular species of trout. Add to that the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement, and you get some partially justified knee-jerk reactions.
It’s too bad. After all, the American environmental movement was originally founded by a Republican.
Most conservatives view environmental regulations as “big government” intrusion that adds unnecessarily to the cost of doing business. CEO’s receive bonuses based on quarterly performance, so there is very little incentive to invest in long term plans that may not bear fruit unitl after thay have retired.
It also has a lot to do with conservative perceptions about property rights (involving both individuals and businesses) and the idea that you should be able to do what you want on your own property.
Liberals tend to be oriented more towards communal rights and the power of government to decide what’s best for the community.
As for European energy consumption, I suspect that historicaly greater efforts toward conservation are linked to having lower energy reserves than the United States.
Seems to me that at least part of it is also due to the idea that, put crudely, the environment is God’s creation and there’s not much we can do to screw it up.
Some experience that environmentalism stand in the way of capitalism, i.e. the more we have to nurse Gaia, the more we also limit the possibilities in making good affairs. You can argue for or against this, but I would think that any environment/humanity vs. cold cash will be labeled socialist/liberal. Even if it goes into something as simple as timing street lights (which actually saves energy and is not costful).
Sure, but can’t someone else pay for it? There’s a lot of strategic behaviour going on here. Businesses would be expected to exaggerate abatement costs, environmentalists to hand-wave them away. Business will want to be paid to stop damage. Consumers want environmental benefits for free.
That being said, I’m not sure that the environment is entirely a “liberal” issue: there has traditionally been a bit of a ‘purity of nature’ theme amongst some on the right.
I don’t believe that comes into question at all. It has more to do with business than anything else. Environmental regulations and restrictions add additional costs to business. Quite often the concerns of environmentalists are in conflict with the practicalities of providing jobs.
Libertarians would likely argue that market forces will dictate how much pollution people will tolerate in their environment.
Very little of it, I think. I’ve never heard that said, but I have heard sermons on how the Earth is entrusted to us and we need to care for it. And that’s in Southern Baptist churches.
Conservative nature-lover here. Protecting the environment is a classic “tragedy of the commons” issue, one which requires government intervention for the common good. Left to pursue their own interests, businesses and individuals will tend to place environmental concerns below corporate or personal gain so we must rely on a central authority to protect the environment. This creates a conflict for those whose default preference is against government regulations. As with many issues, the extremes on both sides tend to create a sane consensus in the middle, which is where we are now, IMO. The dynamic in our politics, wherein “environmental whackos” lobby for extreme, seemingly anti-human regulations while free-market extremists bemoan any attempt to curtail pollution in apocalyptic terms, results in reasonable attempts to balance the various interests.
The tradtional conservative American dream is build a business, get stinking filthy rich, move to a beautiful tropical island with your trophy wife and let all the poor and middle class choke on all the filth and shit your business creates. Hence, conservatives don’t care about the environment. Only losers live in the environment, from their POV.
I remember thinking on this issue a lot when I was young and part of a fundamental christian religous establishment. There was nothing I enjoyed more than being outside and enjoying nature. On one hand, I felt it my duty to be a stewart of what God created and protect it for future generations. But on the other hand, Jesus’s return was imminent, so what was the point. Who’d care about long-term investment in the environment if there wasn’t a long time left that the Earth would even be around? So might as well exploit it as much as possible.
Fortunately, my religous views have changed alot since those days and now I feel that protecting the environment is probably the best investment for the future even if it does not net any immediate benefit.
People in the area that I grew up in still see the words such as ‘environmental’ and ‘environmentalist’ as liberal and its hard to talk to them if those words are used. However, if I speak of ‘conservation’, most of the time, they are much more receptive.
This thread, which obviously has the potential to attract and be taken over by whackos on both extremes, had proceeded remarkably sanely until this nonsense appeared.
I also think idealism plays a role. As a group, liberals are more idealistic than conservatives. The drilling in the ANWR is a good example. Drilling there would not be disruptive to 95 percent of the area, would provide more oil which would bring down prices and make the country less dependent on OPEC. That’s the logic.
The idealism side is “Don’t bother me with logic and detail. Save the pristine wilderness!”
Businesses are in business to make money by providing the goods and services people want. They cannot be trusted or expected to behave in a way that does not serve their self interests.
ergo:
Government is in the business of establishing the rules in which businesses operate. It is the government that must strike a balance between providing jobs for it’s constituents and protecting the environment.
In two posts, Fear Itself and Evil Captor have demonstrated why environmentalism has become a “Liberal” issue. The tendency to paint business or capitalism as a bunch of evil fat-cats in top hats and monocles laughing gleefully as they dump toxic waste under schools is unrealistic, counterproductive and ignores any actual issues.
That is exactly the reason many sole proprietors expand their businesses. It is difficult to become wealthy solely on the fruits of one’s own labor; the key to building wealth is to profit from the labor of others. It’s not humanitarian in intent, but it has a humanitarian effect.
I’m a hawkish Republican and I have been part of environmental groups since I was 20. I felt weird have Greenpeace protest the Carrier I was serving on. I mentioned to one of them that I was a member. He laughed in surprise.
To me environmentalism should be a general issue, not Democrat or Republican, not liberal or conservative. It is in everyone’s favor to preserve open space and endangered creatures. It is a matter of National defense to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. (Where did Osama’s money come from?)
For my part a drive a small fuel efficient Ford Focus Wagon, I have solar panels on my roof (6700watts worth), I use compact florescent bulbs in most of the house. I keep the Heat to a max of sixty and it is on a digital control to reduce heating when we are out of the house. I look for Energy Star Appliances.
I also teach through and environmental group about the benefits of clean water and a healthy environment from the open hull of a Wooden Sailing Garvey whose only non wind power comes from hand made oars.