Why is environmentalism a "left-wing" issue?

Yes it can. Better technology can reduce our need for land and make it easier to replant forests.

There are environmentalists on both sides. The right believes agriculture was a mistake. The left believes technology will solve the problems technology created.

hunter and fisherman do more than any left wingers via seasonal licenses

Conservation = public property rather than private, which is a commie position

>Restricting the use of coal reduces the availability of energy in the short term, making it more expensive to refurbish existing infrastructure in the long term
But that can be replaced with nuclear and some other "green" technologies. I agree that restricting nuclear is fucking retarded.

Im an environmentalist. Thats why I oppose immigration and other policies that increase population growth in africa.

That's right. Those who value life should not seek to propagate it. Even with our superior minds, humans abuse surplus like any other animal. Rather than enjoying a better quality of life, history shows that civilizations expand until they inevitably collapse.

>nuclear energy produces less pollution per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels
I like that, but the "amount" of pollution isn't the risk here. It's the TYPE of pollution. Nuclear waste is much more awful than even the stuff fossil fuel produces.

>and wind and solar don't produce nearly enough to meet the world's needs
The point is to increase that amount so that it WILL produce enough to meet those needs!

>Restricting the use of coal reduces the availability of energy in the short term, making it more expensive to refurbish existing infrastructure in the long term
That's fucking retarded and I think you know it. If restricting coal makes energy more expensive, it just produces incentives to use something else to produce energy. It's not like the price of energy required to manufacture a solar panel will rise faster than the cost of all energy everywhere. Stop bullshitting because that's not how modern economies work. Unless you literally ban all fossil fuels immediately, there will simply be a short period when energy prices are higher, followed by swift decline as green energy fills in the gap (brought to you by the Technology Fairy™).

>It also kills jobs, leading to poverty- just look at West Virginia
By this retarded logic we should never have adopted the automobile because it killed a bunch of horse-related jobs.

>Restricting nuclear energy is an even bigger deal, it literally eliminates the best solution
Nuclear energy is a stopgag. The "best solution" is actually many, and it involves a combination of a wide range of diverse renewable energy sources: Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc.

This is another thing I don't really get why right-wingers are so against environmentalism.
Who do you think is going to be most affected by the extreme heat and droughts brought upon by global warming? That's right - the shitskins. And what are they going to do? Head for the poles!
If you thought 2015 was bad, imagine literally 3+ billion starving third worlders desperately trying to get out of their famished and flooded countries. No border wall in the world is going to save "Western Civilization". Even if you literally murder 9 out of 10 of them, that's still 300,000,000 people.

Attached: Projected_impact_of_climate_change_on_agricultural_yields_by_the_2080s,_compared_to_2003_levels_(Cli (2008x1346, 68K)

Conservation and agriculture are right wing

Carbon taxes and global meming are left wing

Go full nuclear. Use the waste to create supersoldiers. Solved. You're welcome.

This is the real answer not some Christian bashing garbage.

See how they actually want to dismantle industry etc.

KILL THESE FUCKING COMMUNISTS!

How are right-wingers opposed against environmentalism

If you want to stop shitty environments bring back jobs to america and stop exporting shit to china and India which is exactly what the right wing is doing

If any party is opposed to environmentalism it's npcs and liberals who buy 900 dollar iphones

Attached: ....jpg (500x337, 39K)

Both are worthy goals.

The actual commies were much worse for the environment than capitalist countries ever were.

Attached: 38055C3A00000578-3777920-image-m-95_1473256189527.jpg (634x396, 108K)

Carbon taxing is a worthy goal.

DIE IN A FUCKING FIRE.

You are a communist faggot, all of your games are simply pushed so your precious global government will be managing the means of production globally.

It's how most economists propose we deal with it, and it just seems to make sense.
Do you have alternative solutions?

It became a left-wing issue when previously uncontroversial subjects like climate change or land conservation got merged with anti-capitalism in the 60s and 70s. People don't realise how widespread support was for conservation before radical environmentalists got their hands on the issue. Most people also don't realize that the human contribution to the greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1880s. The problem is that rather than just making sure we set aside some habitat for creatures like polar bears, environmentalists today demand we abandon capitalism, destroy numerous industries, and impoverish billions.

>I like that, but the "amount" of pollution isn't the risk here. It's the TYPE of pollution. Nuclear waste is much more awful than even the stuff fossil fuel produces.
It's much easier to contain than any type of air pollution and it can even be recycled.

>The point is to increase that amount so that it WILL produce enough to meet those needs!
And my point is that they can't. They require vast amounts of space in areas that are particularly sunny or windy. Even if you manage to find that much space without relocating millions of people, you're bound to cause damage to local ecosystems.

>That's fucking retarded and I think you know it. If restricting coal makes energy more expensive, it just produces incentives to use something else to produce energy. It's not like the price of energy required to manufacture a solar panel will rise faster than the cost of all energy everywhere. Stop bullshitting because that's not how modern economies work. Unless you literally ban all fossil fuels immediately, there will simply be a short period when energy prices are higher, followed by swift decline as green energy fills in the gap (brought to you by the Technology Fairy™).
If that were the case it would've worked out already. It hasn't though, because wind and solar are impractical for the reasons described above and nuclear takes a long time to develop, even if the government doesn't throw a monkey wrench in it. Regardless of what the solution is, it's what we need in the meantime.

>By this retarded logic we should never have adopted the automobile because it killed a bunch of horse-related jobs.
By all means, tell me all about the new alternative energy plants I'm unaware of that sprung up in West Virginia.

Climate change isn't real you fucking moron, Mr Shekelberg should be allowed to pollute the earth for profit you dumb cuck #maga

>If you want to stop shitty environments bring back jobs to america and stop exporting shit to china and India
How is one related to the other?
The point is to STOP pollution. If you just bring back industry to western countries... well, now you're polluting from America and Europe. Nice temperate places which really should be protected even more than the disgustingly overpopulated Asian crapholes.

Attached: SierraEscarpmentCA.jpg (700x178, 51K)

Kill all jews

Attached: 4CA80709-9D5F-4E4D-B91A-88AA8B92D449.jpg (1024x635, 83K)

you need to have leftistit tendencies to believe that there's an issue with the environment and that it needs to be protected in the first place

Climate change is the least important of all environmental problems.

Because one country has laws against dumping shit into the ocean while another doesn't

How is this a hard concept to understand
I thought jews were supposed to be smart

Attached: come on senpai.png (371x313, 153K)

Slime beneath me, mmm,...

Attached: Hexxus.jpg (1000x800, 266K)

More efficient tech leads to more people. And more often than not, more ignorant people.

Ecofascist gang

>rather than just making sure we set aside some habitat for creatures like polar bears
What does this even mean?
Glorified zoos?
The point of environmentalism is to protect the environment. Nature, as it is without human intervention. Just polluting away but saying it's okay because he look there are two tiny and overtoured safaris over there is... well, it's dystopian, frankly.

Attached: fd2f69a065ba760bca08b5fd9faf9012.jpg (600x613, 37K)

Right wing hunters put their money where their mouth is and contribute the actual funds that ensure conservation. Some of us can also do statistics and can see that the IPCC models are far too different from observations to be correct.

If it actually was about the environment and didn't drag other political ideas in around it, sure. Unfortunately they want to use it to redistribute wealth and make things more "fair", multicultural and sentimentally pleasing because muh animals.

It can all burn for all I care, nature will be here long after we are gone no matter what we do.
We are not destroying anything but our future and I don't care.

3rd world countries are literally the cause for 90% of the global climate issues. Have you seen the trash floating around these countries in the ocean? People cant even go outside in china without PPE. White people need to get off this planet and start over on their own.

>leftistit tendencies
Like what?
As pointed out, it may well be a right-wing issue.

At some point westerners will know the value of guns and self-defence again. When Israel falls, Europe will take its last stand.

American conservatism is sick and decadent. In fact conservative politics in the West in general have been effete and repulsive since the First World War. Small minds trapped by sports-politics mindset allow themselves to be stooges for pathetic corporations which won't exist in a century. What a waste of human resources. Eliminate democracy.

Because literally goes like this:
>"WE MUST INVEST MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY TO SAVE THE EARTH" - left
>"but climate change is part of the natural cycle of things and the degree to which anthropologic influence matters is still a matter of conjecture" - right
>"SO YOU DENY CLIMATE CHANGE? FUCKING NAZIS" - left
Over and over and over again.
The left doesn't care about the climate.
They care about virtue signaling, using the climate as the victim in their moral playfield.
It's not about saving the Earth, it's about attaining and exercising control.

I don't like the thought that manmade=/=natural. Man is a natural part of the world. Therefore, anything we make is, by extension, natural.
Who exactly says we cannot remake the world in our vision? Why are we bound to protect "beautiful" rain forests or "magnificent" wilderness? This is our planet and we are the dominant species. We need to look out for #1. Yes that means reducing pollution if (and only if) it helps us survive. But reducing industry because it is not "natural" is just plain dumb.

But the "right-wingers" who want to bring back industry are the very same who destroy environment-protecting regulation and roll back even the most minor reform towards a green future.

One of the biggest threats to climate change is overpopulation specially in third world countries, but left will never give it to much priority because racism

propose changes that actually make sense
destroying industry in western nations isnt a logical solution

Attached: co2emissions.jpg (504x336, 22K)

Ironically humans trying to prevent climate change will fuck up the Earth more than just letting it happen. The current solution is to literally spray aluminium particles in the atmosphere, which is happening in every UN country "top secretly" and you just think it's water vapor contrails as usual lmfao. Breathe it in Lefty, that's progressiveness at work.

Because retard boomers think that they are perfect and that there’s no way that hyperindustrlization is at fault for warmer temrpertures

>whats your solution
exterminate the chinese and the indians
unironically
combined those 2 cocuntries alone rape this coutnry 3 times more than all the ocuntries of the world combined

Name 3 people

Yes kill each and everyone of you.

>remake the world in our vision
We're not looking out for #1 retard. We're JUSTing ourselves.

Attached: pollution-beach.jpg (2500x1667, 660K)

We are so far along they now say shit like, well do you have any better ideas?

Remember when they used to deny that is what they want?

>What does this even mean?
>Glorified zoos?

Like a national wildlife preserve, a national park, a national wilderness area, etc. You set aside some habitat for species like that, and do what we want with the rest.

>The point of environmentalism is to protect the environment. Nature, as it is without human intervention.

To what extent? Literally everything we do changes the environment. Just being alive changes the environment. Farming changes the environment. Damming a river changes it. Building cities changes it. Are you advocating human self-extermination to protect the earth? Probably not. Your entire argument becomes unworkable without the total extermination of humanity.

Actually funding research into more efficient energy alternatives and their miniaturization...such as nuclear fission or fusion.

>it makes sense to destroy all of your own industries with insane regulation while chinks have literally none even though we share the same atmosphere that will supposedly lead to the apocalypse
oh and dont worry about the fact that we are going to try squeezing as many people as possible onto this tiny planet
not your people though lol

Attached: worldpopcontinents.gif (684x784, 612K)

where my ecofascists at???

>environment-protecting regulation

Those regulations don't protect shit, giving bureaucratic faggots lots of money and retirement benefits does not protect jack shit.

Spot on.

I put my hunting property under a conservation easement, preserving it for the future generations of hunters.

There's a big difference between conservatives (who, well, *conserve* the small, beautiful and local) and Republicans (who will "sell all of grandmother's silver" to developers to make a quick buck).

Anytime somebody proposes a big gubmint "fix" (especially to something certainly not "settled science") my hand instinctively reaches back and covers my wallet.

Thorium reactors.

guys ive got an idea lets destroy all of the incredibly beautiful ecosystems in africa to see how many more cannabalistic niggers we can squeeze on the planet then once theyve totally destroyed it we can import them all into our own countries because it would be mean not to

Attached: africanelephant.jpg (660x495, 65K)

All myopic arrogant American drones and "conservatives" and their petty bourgeois concerns should be crushed by pitiless unrelenting power. Insects who would let the world decay don't count for anything.

Attached: leviathan_hobbes.jpg (628x480, 125K)

>Yes that means reducing pollution if (and only if) it helps us survive
I addressed that. Yeah your picture looks ugly but unless you can show me how fixing it is a step towards our survival I really don't give a shit about it.

Here's how I think about this

Getting off oil (going electric and increasing fuel economy etc) is a good thing, all the biggest shitholes live off high oil price and that's the only thing that makes them relevant

Humans don't want to live in rubbish-world drone.

But user, we can just colonize other planets by the time this one goes under.

In Italy our most environmental-friendly party is a neofascist one, but again, "right" and "left" are old concepts nowadays

Saudi Arabia case in point. Boy would I love to see their government seething as we stop listening to them and siding with them because of oil.

Autistic Australians at it again

Rush Limbaugh told them it was a scam

Read The Impeachment of Man by Savitri Devi

>It's much easier to contain than any type of air pollution and it can even be recycled.
It's also much more toxic and long-lasting.
I'm not even really "against" nuclear energy, especially considering it's so much safer now than it was even 20 years ago. I just think it's not the ultimate solution. At best, it's just a stopgag to figure out how we phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible with as least disturbance as possible. Once we have CO2 emissions under control, nuclear should be slowly phased out too.

>And my point is that they can't
I doubt it.
Where it isn't particularly sunny, it's windy. Where it isn't windy NOR sunny, there usually at least some rivers or even an ocean nearby. You don't even need much space for it - just declare that all newly constructed buildings must come with this or that % of their roof area covered in solar panels.
I actually struggle to think of any biome that doesn't lend itself to any obvious green solution. In those cases (if they exist), sure, nuclear can stay around for a while longer until we figure something out.

But still - the fact is that several countries have already phased out fossil fuel to a very significant degree with no real practical problems. So you're bullshitting again.

>If that were the case it would've worked out already. It hasn't though,
It hasn't because there was no pressure to abandon fossil fuels before they kill us all. There is more easily-accessible carbon in the earth than the atmosphere can tolerate. The point of a carbon tax is to fix that problem.

>By all means, tell me all about the new alternative energy plants I'm unaware of that sprung up in West Virginia.
This isn't actually an answer.
But look, I see what you're saying... but not to turn this outright political, I think you're being really dishonest in your arguing. Somehow I doubt you really CARE about the poverty of West Virginian people, and that you merely use it as a rhetorical stick to bash other people with.

You don't need to be a filthy libtard to put your plastics in the recycling.

What is preservation and who deserves to be alive and in what condition?
Clearly Israel is comfortable keeping sand-niggers alive in some pretty shitty conditions.

So, user, what’s your response to thorium reactors? Not nearly as toxic waste, can’t make into bombs, more efficient. Not to mention fusion has similar benefits.

You can keep hot temperatures out of a wildlife preserve. How do you keep polar bears around if they have no appropriate ecological environment left in the world to keep them around in?

>To what extent?
That's a debatable question, the point is "at least more than we do now".

Ecofascism is the final red pill.

Attached: save bees not refugees.jpg (900x960, 220K)

>BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE GOY
>ONLY TWELVE MORE YEARS LEFT AGAIN

Then it's a good thing we concentrate them in piles like that so we don't have to see them everywhere

that polar bear is wet, not starving or sick, god this planet is retarded

Bug.

Because your side is cancer and politicized environmental issues to funnel more money into your bullshit charities and social programs.

Like the loud autistic screeching that accompanied America refusing to pay China to paint their grass green.

I’d have less problems with carbon tax if all of the income from it went straight into alternative energy research and construction.

Because claiming that either you follow their instructions to "save the planet" or everyone will die is a totalitarian system. There is nothing wrong with working to protect the environment but you are not going to be allowed to install a global carbon tax system.

Sometimes survival is "totalitarian". Just because someone in the tribe decides that the only alternative to dying is to migrate, the truth-value of their claim is not diminished or enhanced by the fact that it is an ultimatum. You can be skeptical, but it is not a concrete reason for rejection.

.guB

This is true; however, before the tribe migrates, every effort should be made to stay where they are, or improve their conditions.

Just skimming over the (((Wikipedia))) article about climate change would show you why what you're saying is bullshit.
Like, no. The "natural cycle of things", insofar as we can even determine it, says we're actually due for a global cooling, not warming. And yes, scientists are 99.9% certain the warming is the result of human activity. The mechanisms for it are well-attested and there are just no other plausible hypotheses to account for it.

You can analyze whatever the Left's underlying psychology however much you want (and I kind of agree with you), but even if it's not always being done for the correct reasons, it's still a very good goal. Protecting the environment is just... generally good? It's not even a matter of (only) climate change. Basic stuff like stopping farmers from polluting water streams with their fertilizers or protected nature reserves or replacing polluting noisy cars with electric vehicles are all good things to have regardless of your socio-economical-cultural stances.

Okay listen here you fucking kike.
If you actually knew anything you would know that the West is not who environmentalists should target. All of North America and Europe PALES in comparison to the Chinese and Indians. They commit the vast majority of all environmental pollution and even if all of the West went 100% green it wouldn't matter because the chingchongs and poos still exist. Nothing short of nuclear holocaust will change them.

Saw a similar post with a slightly different title spewing the same rhetoric over on VOAT. All of this comes after the Conservatives are proven true about global warming.

Make of it what you will...I say someone is making a lot of money posting on all of the message boards and it ain't us!

Hitler loved the planet. He even instituted the first hunting seasons, which were adopted by almost every western country in the world.
1934 Das Reichjagdesetz (Reich hunting law).

Attached: Hitler.jpg (229x300, 8K)

Because environmentalism is just a code word for
>alarmism pure all talk no action cash grab scams
And the only people that support that and can't see trough it are sadly leftists.
>imagine giving your hard earned money to crazy people that fly around the planet in their private 747, have a personal driver and 5 vehicle motorcrade, stay only in presidential suites in 5 star hotels and throw away more food every meal then a normal household in a month to lecture you about "environmentalism" and how you have to protect mother nature...
Kinda ironic huh?

Normal people actually do something instead of donating 10€ or click like on facebook just to post it across every social media possible to pretend they personally saved the planet.

So? The chinese are dog-eating sociopaths. Just because they're doing something doesn't mean it's okay for everyone else to do it.
(Regardless, even China begun trying to keep their CO2 emissions low and combat all the pollution that makes their cities unlivable - as even your graph shows at the very end)

Turning environmentalism into a fanatical religion based on post-modern pseudoscience is a left-wing thing and you should all be fed to polar bears for poisoning the well this badly.