SteveB/Colorado:
Conservation, always a worthy endeavor, has nothing whatsoever to do with all this climate change claptrap. Even conservatives recognize that wild spaces and preserves are actually good things (in moderation–all things in moderation). Where so many environmentalists go wrong is equating use with abuse. You see, you can use and conserve at the same time and a resource, natural or otherwise, ceases to be a resource if it can’t be used. Roosevelt said: Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I doubt we conservatives could put it any better than that.
And as long as we’re at it, Teddy, while a great conservationist was far too much of a populist to be considered a conservative. Richard Nixon was decidedly not, repeat not, a conservative (take a look at a list of his domestic “accomplishments” some time–it’s enough to make an actual conservative cry). GWB is a proponent of compassionate (big government) conservatism. We non-compassionate (small government) types were at odds with his policies more often than not.
And, finally, the Montreal Protocol provides us with a global warming cautionary tale. While the dangers of chlorofluorocarbons might have made their banning a worthy environmental goal, the necessity of finding substitutes lead us right back into the briar patch. Hydrofluorocarbons cause chlorine buildup in the stratosphere and may be contributing to the greenhouse effect. Halons themselves have been found to deplete the ozone layer. Every action has a reaction and consequences, sometimes dire. How many millions of people, for example, have died of malaria, a disease that was well on its way to being wiped out, in the years since DDT was banned?
Frankly, the global warming crowd, the Gore acolytes with their hysterical prognostications and ridiculous assertions of scientific consensus are not trustworthy. I fear the “unintended” consequences of their various “fixes” far more than anything we might encounter due to a slight change in climate. More and more, we’re finding that their unimpeachable science is actually junk. Furthermore, the potential financial gain Gore and others would realize through the regulation of carbon emissions makes their motives increasingly suspect.
