🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43l91t$krq@zippy.cais.net>, gahler@cais2.cais.com (Mark
Gahler) wrote:

> Dwight wrote that Republicans rarely respond to the Sierra Club's
> questionaires. This got me thinking that many would probably not want
> SC's endorsement anyway, even if SC sent money along with it. This caused
> me to ask myself whether I would want SC's endorsement if I ever ran for
> office. I figured I might, since I believe a pro-environment conservative
> would be a popular thing. Then I read...
>  
> Dan Ferber <Dan_Ferber@qms1.life.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >....the (often losing) fight against the "dirty water bill", the EPA ax 
> >job, attacks on National Biological Service and other anti-environmental 
> >bills in this Congress.  
> 
> ...and changed my mind. This is the same rhetoric that the Sierra Club
> uses and I wouldn't want any part of it. Sometimes I forget that there's
> often a big difference between being conscientious wrt the environment 
> and being an "environmentalist."
> 

No great loss to nature.  To be "conscientous with respect to the
environment" means more than saying you like trees and the outdoors etc.
It means DOING what you can to help.  Now I'm not saying being a
pro-environment conservative (or conservationist, or whatever your
preferred term is) is necessarily an oxymoron, but lets see some positive
"conservative" alternatives to the gutting of env'tl laws like the CWA, or
axing the EPA's enforcement budget 50% so they can't stop illegal
polluters, or repealing the Endangered Species Act.  These laws work for
the most part.  Of course they can be improved, but repeal is not reform. 
If real solutions were ever offered by conservative Republicans, as
opposed to voting the desires of industry every time and gutting laws,
there might be some credibility to the term "pro-environment
conservative."  I sure as hell would like to see you succeed in convincing
other conservatives it's not in their interest to allow the environment to
be trashed in the name of "progress."

BTW, waving a magic wand and saying private ownership will solve all the
environmental problems does not count--pragmatic, realistic alternatives
are needed.

I call 'em like I see 'em, and the bills I mentioned are
anti-environmental crap.  If there was a more moderate bill offered, I'd
have a more moderate response.  So would SC, probably.  Sorry I nudged you
off board so easily, but I don't think you were ever on board.  Dan