What are good examples/books of right wing environmentalism

There are none.

>>952359
Almost all childrens books are right wing. They say "pick upyour trash lets be good people" not "we are so much better than that guy lets punish him"

>>952359
>right wing environmentalism

in the US there once was the "crunchy-con" movement but the GOP is so far sold and gone that it doesn't really exist on a mainstream level anymore (people are scared of losing their energy donors)

which is why you are seeking GOP state officials in AK and Utah being able to make bullshit moves on open spaces.

>>952364
Open spaces is not environmentalism. Banning coal is not environmentalism. Beleiving retarded theories based on computer models without proof isnt environmentalism and it isnt science either.

Why do liberals want to force people to do what is right? When just about everyone will do what is right by themselves if they have enough infodrmation to know what is right.

>>952359
Property rights & tort law
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

File: animas-river-before-and-after-epa-toxic-waste-spill.jpg (83KB, 600x373px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x373px

>What are good examples or books of lefty environmentalism

None

>>952443
The opening case in any intro tort law book is coming to the problem. Probably citing the 1950s florida case against the piig farmer and the developer

Well you came to 4chan. I hope you die

>>952359

This is more of a /pol/ topic, but good luck getting an answer from those morons.

Conservatives tend to look to Libertarians for ideas on the environment. I'd go visit the Cato foundation site, or read Reason magazine. National Review sometimes has articles on this, but only intermittently and I can't think of a good book reference.

Mainly, they take the position that environmental problems are real but that government takeovers are either not the solution or actually make the environment worse. Whatever definition of socialism you use, there's never been a socialist government that hasn't committed vast scales of environmental crimes.

Basically it's like a case of someone having a bad bacterial infection, and two doctors arguing over him. One insists the patient is fine. The other is right that he's sick, but wants to cure him with cynide. That's basically environmental policy today.

>>952361
fpbp

File: tmp_28620-weak207982206.jpg (55KB, 580x379px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 580x379px

>>952477
Your stupid.

I was shouting from the mountaintops how noaa was falsefieng their data. Twice before has it broke that global warming data is false. And last week for a third time it was proven that global warming is literally made up. They invent tempatures.

Idont care anymore. I dont want to save tge wilfully ignorant.

File: tmp_28620-30 Rock697400612.jpg (18KB, 400x317px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x317px

>>952481
I hate stereotypes thats why i stereotype

Trump and his retard administration are cartoon villain-tier bad on the environment. But fucktards with insecurity complexes will continue to support "conservatism" no matter what since their pea-brains can't form an identity outside of hating other people.

>>952477
>doing nothing is better than maybe getting some things wrong some times

The free market and lack of regulation fucks the environment harder than anything. This is indisputable. You're spinning a bunch of bullshit to defend your idiot tribe.

>>952488
Eplain how.

I hate trump. But i hate him for real reasons. How is trump anti enviromnt?

>>952488
>left-wing hater detected

Note how the hate and contempt are more extreme in propotion to how much they claim to live, love and care.

Contemptable hypocrisy!

>>952490
A givernment controlled econrmy would somehow magically care for resources more than a market econemy?

Pls explain how.

>>952359
I don't care about whether someone has left or right wing politics, I just wish there were no blacks and chinese so animals wouldn't be poached to extinction, and deadly toxins wouldn't be released into the atmosphere

>>952491
Wanting to dismantle the EPA for starters?

>>952493
>HURR durr so much for da tolerant liberals durr de durr

Great talking point smooth-brain.

>>952496
There wouldn't be any managed or protected land if the government did not exist to enforce it. This is not that hard to comprehend.

File: tmp_28620-14744429719601987589121.jpg (74KB, 476x700px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 476x700px

>>952499
You do understand that almost all govermnment land is leased for drilling, timber or grazing, riight?
My problem is with freedom. Your problem is apparemtly you think the govt should make parks.

>>952483
>Your stupid.
You're
>tempatures
Temperatures
>Idont care anymore. I dont want to save tge wilfully ignorant.
I don't care anymore. i don't want to save the willfully ignorant.

>>952502
Yeah, and the leased land is regulated and managed.

>freedom

Why do you give a fuck about made-up ideologies? God damn Americans are dumb. Do what works to protect land and that's it.

>>952490

Not only disputable, but easily disputed. You're just spitting slogans. I already threw down the gauntlet, but here it is again: name a socialist government that hasn't committed vast scales of environmental crimes.

When the Soviet Union fell, we already knew about massive environmental damage done in Russia and Eastern Europe. China has had major environmental problems; recently the beloved river dolphin went extinct, and the air and water quality issues are well known. India has been liberalizing, slowly, from its original experiment with democratic socialism; it too suffers from massive environmental damage (that, as with Russia today, is slowly lessening). Germany under national socialism of course is better known for its crimes against humanity, but they too presided over a major rape of the environment. ALL of these countries to one degree or another presented socialism as friendly to nature.

Socialism's record on human rights, inequality, poverty, race/gender/religious discrimination, etc aren't really apropos for /out/. You might decide that those reasons are more important than environmental consciousness. But the record is very clear on socialism's actual real-world impact on the environment vs free markets.

Europe's democratic socialism-lite appears to have a mixed record in terms of actual environmental damage (as opposed to the zeal with which they try to prevent that damage), but overall similar to America's, whose economy is much less regulated. However, there are enough differences that you could claim that a mixed economy is superior to both free markets and socialism. You at least would have some factual basis for the argument. But socialism is clearly far, far worse than both mixed and free markets.

>>952544
>Do what works to protect land and that's it.

And meanwhile, someone else is screaming "do what works to reduce poverty and that's it." Which, btw, is the holdup which is why no carbon treaty comes even close to doing anything the climate models say will have any positive impact at all. At best, even the proponents admit that the main reason to push through a treaty is to set the precedent for the next treaty.

The whole point of government and the political process is to sort out millions of people who only care about "do what works to remedy issue X that I care about to the exclusion of all others". That's true regardless of how politics in your country are organized. In a full socialist system, the environmental concerns don't have much of a voice and activism is largely illegal anyway. So those issues naturally were more or less trashed.

In free market economies, you assign ownership rights to common goods. So for example fisheries management used to be a major issue. Then the whole problem got turned into an industry association run by the fishermen. Now fisheries in the United States are recovering because they're run very conservatively.

In a mixed economy, you try to align incentives to set high-level goals and as much as possible leave the markets to figure out how to meet those goals. The problem with regulation like that is that you can either reduce pollution by reducing economic activity (stagnation), or by trying to advance science such that the consequences of existing activity are minimized (innovation). But a law mandating new technology X ends up lasting long after superior technology Y is invented, preventing experimentation and innovation. There's a constituency that doesn't want X to go away and not much of one pushing Y. So you pass a rule and there's a brief honeymoon, but then innovation stops.

So there's no magic bullet. Protecting the environment is expensive no matter who is cutting the check.

>>952547
>cherry picking third world countries as examples of regulation

There isn't protected or managed land without government regulation. That's all there is to it. There would be far more extinctions and far less forest without government involved. There is one side of this issue that is better, sorry.

>>952491

If you believe that massive regulation by the EPA does more good than harm for the environment, Trump's promise to roll large amounts of those regulations back would count as anti-environment.

Ultimately, protecting the environment is expensive. It's expensive in terms of cleanup, in terms of technologies you have to pay to install and use to prevent environmental damage, in terms of higher prices for consumer goods that are responsibly manufactured, and in terms of the beneficial manufacturing you would have done but didn't because it's too polluting.

For a while, people thought that green jobs would work. Get everyone working on cleanup, make it an industry. In practice, no green jobs program anywhere has paid for itself or come anywhere close. Being green may be very good, but you can't re-arrange the economy to make it magically free.

So then the real question is where we get the wealth to support a cleaner environment (and how do we make sure it's really spent that way and not lost to corruption)?

The way I see it, you can grow the economy enough that we can easily afford the resources necessary to create a clean world, or you can try to seize those resources via the force of law. And if you go with seizing the resources, then you have to solve the puzzle of making sure they're not lost to corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency, or competing political priorities as usually has happened in the past.

>>952547

None of that has anything to do with "socialism" as a system, only the priorities of the nations. If Chinese prioritized environment they could protect it far easier than in a free market economy. Successful companies don't self-regulate or have any concern beyond profit.

>>952359
Machiavelli's The Prince?

>>952559
>HURR taxes bad

Lot of words to spin more bullshit. Hope people see through this phony ass "thoughtful" stance. You're slurping up energy industry diarrhea and meme "ideology" and shitting it back out, nothing more.

>>952369
>Everyone will always do the right thing

Pick up a history book

>>952483
> And last week for a third time it was proven that global warming is literally made up. They invent tempatures
source?

>>952559
So your plan is to rape the environment to make more money so in some hypothetical future we have enough money to stop raping it?

>>952555

First, Second, and Third World are Cold War-era terms.

Russia and Eastern Europe were second world: aligned with communism. China was second world prior to their split from Russia.

India lead the Non-aligned Movement and was the preeminent power in the Third World: countries allied with neither Soviet-dominated communism nor American democracy/free markets (most were socialist or very heavy-handedly mixed). China later moved into this category.

Nazi Germany doesn't fall into any of those categories because those categories didn't exist at the time.

I didn't pick any First World countries as examples of socialism's effect on the environment because by definition there are no socialist First World countries. You probably think like many people that "First World" means economically developed; that connotation is just because free markets are so good at producing economic development.

As for "cherry picking", my examples cover most of the world's population and its largest countries by land area. That's a hell of a lot of cherries. But if you think there are other examples that disprove me, then go ahead. I keep asking you. I'm the one with the pea brain and no facts, right? So use that big brain and show me the data.

File: AA7269DC-C402-404A-9E32-3BE3E21F9B98-790-0000008B23668564_tmp.jpg (209KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1024x1024px

>>952469
You sure have a boner for the Animas River. I guess when you're rabidly anti-EPA and/or a shill, you latch on to whatever rare example you can to pretend like you're right.

>>952571
"Socialism" is a red herring. Those are developing countries that prioritized cheap energy and manufacturing. That doesn't say anything about the free market protecting the environment or not. The fact is nearly all protections and regulations are government mandated. There is no incentive for the market to self-regulate around environmental protection.

>>952560

The whole point of a company is that it self-regulates. I think you mean that companies don't self-regulate with the priorities that you prefer. Which as you say is also true of countries. You don't get to say that choices made by the public via one system don't count, but by another system do. If you're going to compare, then draw your comparison between the real-world in-practice behavior of these systems.

>If Chinese prioritized environment

IF

But that's the point. Once you organize an economy that way, they WON'T prioritize the environment. Many socialists come to power pushing an eco-friendly agenda; this never lasts once they're actually in power.

>>952576
>bla bla bla Koch shit

>>952563

Keep in mind that most of the costs I list aren't taxes. They're additional resources an industry has to expend to do their lessen their environmental impact. (For example, buying a scrubber to take pollutants out of a smoke stack.) Or, the cost of just doing without certain economically beneficial activities because the environmental damage they cause is too great.

Compared to these compliance costs, taxes are a minor matter. Most obviously get passed along to consumers as higher prices and higher costs of living, or as reduced profits for investors.

>>952584
So you literally believe that lack of regulations is better for the environment...why? Can't you just admit that doesn't make any sense instead of twisting everything to your rigid ideology?

>>952567

Basically, temperatures have been rising over the decades... but for the past 20 years temperatures haven't changed much at all. This is referred to as "the pause".

A recent paper in Science from the NOAA suggests that this pause hadn't really happened and was a consequence of measurement issues-- that temperatures have been rising all along.

Another scientist from NOAA then came forward and said that in the rush to get the paper published immediately for political/diplomatic reasons, NOAA violated its own data integrity rules. The data set used was from an in-development analysis system but this wasn't disclosed in the paper. Additionally, the full data and model weren't made publicly available. There's a dispute about whether the actual data from the paper is available now; it wasn't posted to their FTP site as required but the researchers say they'll share it on request. The reason the scientist raising the objection is important is that he's the guy who created the NOAA data integrity rules in the first place. As far as I know, he's a believer in global warming.

So the allegations seem credible, but WAY WAY WAY less important than people are making it out to be. In no way does it discredit climate science (the hockey stick model scandal from a few years ago was far more serious, but you can google that one if you're really interested in getting into the weeds).

>>952490
>>952497
>>952498
>>952544
>>952563
>>952569
>>952581

So, OP, you can see how what I said here applies:

>>952477
>Basically it's like a case of someone having a bad bacterial infection, and two doctors arguing over him. One insists the patient is fine. The other is right that he's sick, but wants to cure him with cynide. That's basically environmental policy today.

Underneath all the anger and name-calling, you basically have "environmentalism requires socialism because I said so, and if you disagree then you're stupid/evil/insane". The closest anyone came to making an argument was saying that nearly all mandates come from the government. Which is true! In fact, ALL mandates come from the government because only the government has the authority to impose mandates.

(And, actually, many companies do have environmental standards that surpass what is required by law, for a number of reasons.)

But then you get to questions of what kind of mandates you want to impose. Ideally, you tell a company to limit their production of some pollutant to a certain level, but then leave them to figure out how to do that.

OTOH, the way they usually end up doing it is to tell them to use some specific technology X that a lobbyist is pushing.

So then someone invents superior technology Y. So the law changes, right? Nope. Whoever lobbied for technology X now lobbies to keep it. Industry doesn't want to upgrade because that costs something and since it's the same for all companies, there's no competitive advantage to be had by paying for it. So technology Y (and other subsequent techs) are either never invented or never become legal to use.

(1/2)

>>952607

(2/2)

The libertarians have a different approach-- also using the gubbmint. That's that the consumers of the polluted air sue after the fact for the consequences of pollution, thus encouraging companies to work today to prevent costs from emerging tomorrow. That's got its own problems. Cato and Reason talk about this kind of stuff at length. Carbon trading was their idea, for example.

Conservatives these days support some environmental regulation, but never as much as the Left. In theory, the environmental disasters really should have been worse in the first world than under socialism, for reasons people provide above. And yet conservatives can point to every historical example and say "See???" because once you concentrate power in the hands of a political system, it stops mattering why you did that in the first place because at that point everything is a contest of who can lobby harder.

>>952569

Say instead that we solve the cheap problems now, and put off the expensive problems until we've grown our economy enough that those problems become cheap to fix.

And, if that sounds ridiculous, then why do the Paris and Tokyo accords largely exempt India, China, and other developing economies from carbon limits? Answer: because they're not even as far along as we are and the costs are so high that it's just completely ludicrous for them to clean up to the extent that we're at even now. So they do their best to grow to the point where they can afford to do things that are impossible now.

The thing is, we're "developing" as well. We're richer than we were 20 years ago (25% richer) and able to afford a cleaner environment. In 20 years, we'll be richer still, and able to afford to get even cleaner. The faster we grow, the sooner we'll be able to afford even projects that seem ludicrously expensive now.

But if you want to put it in the most incendiary rhetorical way possible (>>952569) then go ahead. You're not wrong.

>>952622
>The thing is, we're "developing" as well. We're richer than we were 20 years ago (25% richer) and able to afford a cleaner environment. In 20 years, we'll be richer still, and able to afford to get even cleaner. The faster we grow, the sooner we'll be able to afford even projects that seem ludicrously expensive now.

If this doesn't seem reasonable to you, then ask yourself why India and China (both to some degree socialist) don't just adopt our current environmental standards. Because they can't afford them, right?

So then the question becomes what can we afford now, and how can we innovate and grow fast enough that we can quickly afford to do much better.

>>952607
>ALL mandates come from the government because only the government has the authority to impose mandates.

Not True

Look at the eradication of the Guinea Worm.
Tribes themselves self-governed themselves without over-reaching federal governments and thus a parasite has all but been completely eradicated.
We can easily do the same without Big Brother telling us how to live our lives, if people were actually fucking raised correctly, and not mentally deficient.

>>952622
I don't wanna grow more growth. I don't wanna see another valley in southern California that was once farmland or wilderness get swallowed up by warehouses full of scented pencils made in China and other dumb shit.

Tell me exactly how much environmental regulations truly hold back American industries. Cus from I can see they mostly affect the resource extraction and energy industry.

>>952639

Growth (at least the per-capita kind) isn't an accumulation of resources. It's an accumulation of innovations and knowledge. That's another right/left difference. On the Left, the idea in general is that you can't get someone richer without getting someone else (or the environment) poorer. But if that were true, then we'd never have advanced as far as we have.

Easy example: the silicon-based microchips you're using right now. Worthless (plentiful) sand a century ago, now we know how to use them to make something of incredible value. Biotech: we learn that citrus-based solvents aren't just more eco-friendly than CFCs, they're cheaper, too. And with those chips we make devices that let us get the benefits of paper without the dead trees or waste problems.

As for examples, every manufacturing industry uses energy and transforms resources, usually resulting in waste. So every industry has its own massive library of regulations that they have to follow. This makes new development hard because often the regulations assume that you're doing things in some particular way and if you aren't, then you might end up fined for not putting scrubbers on a factory that doesn't have smokestacks (for example). It also means that every example I can give is a one-off particular to an industry.

The most easily understood one is here: Google "gibson guitar raid" for more information. http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department That's a left-wing news account, so I hope you put some confidence in it.

I'll summarize in next post

>>952653
>>952639

OK so Gibson.

Basically they were charged with using illegally obtained wood to make their guitars.

The wood was obtained from Madagascar and India, and in both cases they had appropriate documentation for everything. But they were raided by a SWAT team from Fish and Wildlife, their materials confiscated, and the factory shut down. OK, so why?

The Lacey Act of 1900 says that the US can move in to enforce another country's environmental laws even if they don't enforce it themselves (this to prevent companies bribing their way out of trouble in a corrupt country). The DoJ argued that according to THEIR interpretation of Indian forestry laws, Gibson shouldn't have gotten the permit. They also had the search warrant sealed so Gibson couldn't see the evidence that the government was using to justify the raid, and charges were never formally filed. The governments of India and Madagascar have repeatedly said that Gibson was in full compliance with their law.

So after several years and millions of dollars of legal expenses, Gibson signed a consent agreement and paid $300k... and then went back to using the same wood. The government says the investigation remains open while they seek further clarification from the government of India.

Gibson's biggest competitor, Martin guitars, uses the same wood. They were never raided.

Anybody in nearly any manufacturing industry can tell a similar story, though not quite so clear-cut ridiculous.

>>952369
>>>952364
>Why do liberals want to force people to do what is right? When just about everyone will do what is right by themselves if they have enough infodrmation to know what is right.
Because, despite claming otherwise, they are puppets of banksters & big corporations. There are billions to be made on "global warming", just like corporations made billions on "aid for africa" meme in the 80's and 90's. All that tax payer money just lying there, for the taking, if you push the government reps enough.

>>952359
Does Theodore Roosevelt count? The man made the National Park System as a Republican President.

Nixon created the EPA.

It wasn't such a divisive issue until after Bush signed the amendment to the Clean Air Act. By that point the Rockefeller Republicans lost power and the radicalization of the GOP was complete.

>>952359

Is it time for the monthly /out/ spectrum meeting? Nice to see you tards are still mouthbreathing.

>>952359

Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore J. Kaczynski

>>952369
>When just about everyone will do what is right by themselves if they have enough infodrmation to know what is right.

Businesses and Governments already have that information but they don't

>>952476
dude please dont mention torts class again. my prof was such a self righteous jerk off.

also i feel like Byrne v. boadle (the barrel out the window) and palsgraf (fireworks knocking scale on a woman) were the first two cases we read but i could very well be remembering it wrong.

>>952589
>In no way does it discredit climate science
Except for the part where the more conservative media groups are using it to do exactly that.

Please explain to me how "temperatures have not changed at all" when we've broken the record for hottest annual average global temperature ever recorded for several years in a row.

>>952674
>Nixon and Roosevelt
Both true, but they did what they did for completely opposite reasons.

Roosevelt created the National Parks because he loved the outdoors. Much of what he did would be seen these days as anti-industry.

Nixon created the EPA because pollution had become a hot-button issue (see: Cuyahoga River fires). It was all for votes, not because he cared.

>climate change

Regards will believe anything

>>952359
Ducks Unlimited.

>>952567
I dont save sources. But it was on drudge last week. The head noaa climate guy released a paper showing how the "adjustments" in the last big paper were wrong. Which everyone said from the beginning.

No one thinks pollutiion is good. But only idiots think an unproven model is science.

>>952359
Can Life Prevail? - Penti Linkola

>This is the first-ever collection of essays by Pentti Linkola, a controversial figure in his native Finland, to appear in English. Linkola’s interest is in the environmental crisis, but unlike most authors on the subject, he does not propose simple solutions such as recycling or electric cars. Rather, for Linkola, the root of the problem lies in the nature of modern civilization itself, and only by a complete transformation of it can there by any hope for survival.

>With the train of civilization hurtling at ever-increasing speed towards self-destruction, the most pressing question facing humanity in the 21st century is that of the preservation of life itself. Can Life Prevail?, the latest book by Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola, provides a radical yet firmly grounded perspective on the ecological problems threatening both the biosphere and human culture. With essays covering topics as diverse as animal rights, extinction, deforestation, terrorism and overpopulation, Can Life Prevail? for the first time makes the lucid, challenging writing of Linkola available to an English-speaking public.

>“By decimating its woodlands, Finland has created the grounds for prosperity. We can now thank prosperity for bringing us – among other things – two million cars, millions of glaring, grey-black electronic entertainment boxes, and many unnecessary buildings to cover the green earth. Wealth and surplus money have led to financial gambling and rampant social injustice, whereby ‘the common people’ end up contributing to the construction of golf courses, classy hotels, and holiday resorts, while fattening Swiss bank accounts. Besides, the people of wealthy countries are the most frustrated, unemployed, unhappy, suicidal, sedentary, worthless and aimless people in history. What a miserable exchange.” — Pentti Linkola

>>952469

The Sheep Look Up, The Water Knife, Metatropolis

>>952565
>The government is concerned with "the right things"

Pick up a gun, and aim at yourself

>>952359
Ay yo hol'up.
The fuck these bitches got on they backs?

File: 1487006615579.jpg (464KB, 884x903px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 884x903px

Don't waste time with books, just watch in awe as the greatest environmental president ever works his magic

File: DirtyWater_800X600.jpg (249KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 800x600px

>>952359
Trump making our water great again

>>953099
>Implying I said that

Jump off a cliff and improve the gene pool tardo

>>952690
lel

>>953145
>implying you're telling the truth about the original implications of your post

Drink bleach nerd

File: tmp_26703-1486655959592-1234677051.jpg (34KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x480px

>>953257
Pretty muxh all my water is 1% bleach. And i havent died yet.

>>953257
>Implying implications that I did not imply

Roll around in Ebola fuckbaby

File: 13300537.jpg (139KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 400x400px

>>952359
>>>/hm/

>mixing politics and ecology

That was your first mistake. The land doesn't care who you vote for or what you believe. It does what it does and you can either know how that works or be ignorant of it. Study ecology and the problems of your local area then do something to rectify or protect it.

You might like aldo leopold. He was a hunter/logger who revolutionised how we think about the environment.

>>952941
He's a tree hugger autist. He doesn't realize that by chopping down trees, we save billions of sentient wild mammals and avians from being eaten alive.

>>953534

Are you being serious?

>>952832
>It was all for votes, not because he cared.

>doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is the wrong thing to do

File: lecategoricalimperativeface.jpg (118KB, 294x371px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 294x371px

>>953664
>>doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is the wrong thing to do
But that's correct.

>>952359
Hey Opie, the book you're looking for is "The case for environmentalism conservatism" by Roger Scuton

I too was once fairly right leaning and was looking for a book to confirm my pre-existing worldview. Scuton's book is decent, although he does go through some mental gymnastics to justify his ideal conservatism to cater to environmentalism. The book hinges on ideas that Scruton believes are exclusive to conservatism, but the reality is that they are not.

Or you can save yourself the effort of buying, reading, then disposing of the book in whichever way you see fit, and accept the idea that its OK to be a bit lefty on some issues, if you care about the environment in this case, or that caring for the environment doesn't, and shouldn't, be political.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-nE5XChP-M

https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto-pollution

Books- Boy Scout Handbook and Fieldbook (1980's version of the field book).

Organizations--Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation. All filled with right wing leaning conservationists

>environmentalism
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew, and eat our fill.

>>954480
>>954480
You didn't come into existence by sheer force of will, you can lay no claim to anything.

Why do you pretend your birth gives you any right, and worst of all drape it in that gluttony?

>>952832
Actually Nixon created the EPA because he realized that no existing agency had the bandwidth to enforce all the new environmental legislation that Congress was passing. The popular support was a nice bonus, though.

>>952359
It's not right wing but 'The Sceptical Environmentalist' is worth a read - it takes about how the left are as guilty as the right for manipulating data to back up their ethical arguments.

FYI I am left wing and an environmentalist but the hippy vegans do a lot to damage the cause.

Environment and natural resources should be seen as a valuable resource, it's as simple as that. You don't squander or misuse valuable things.

It's not about 'saving the world'. The world will be fine, ten thousand years after WW3 the world will be still be chugging, what environmentalism and sustainability is about is maintaining the best planet for US and our CHILDREN. From that perspective its' not about muh pristine nature, its about maximising human benefit.

You don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

>>954480
That's beautiful. Thank you anon

>>954480
>chew, and eat our fill.
And then choke when there is nothing left and you clogged your arteries. Also nice pseudo-19th century prose you fucking queer

>>952363
The question is not about children's books. Please read the OP

>>954529
>>954480
>Food exists to be consumed. And consumed it will be, if not by me than by other people. By what right do other people get to deny me my Whoppers and Double-Downs? None I say! Let us take what is... huff, huff... ours, chew, and eat... huff huff... just a few more chicken wings.
There is no difference between this bloviated bullshit and the sickening "but me wants" reasoning of terminal landwhales. Fat fucks need to get out.

Good thread so far my dudes keep it up

Scruton

>>954629
Your subservience to your masters denying every aspect of your humanity is sad.

>>952534
>I don't care anymore. i don't want to save the willfully ignorant.
I don't care anymore. I don't want to save the willfully ignorant.

>>955203
What "masters"? Is it those sneaky Jews again, stealing your foreskin and asking you nicely not to lay waste to the countryside? How nasty of them.

I mean, for fuck's sake, it's not like I'm a developer or anything. For an individual "environmentalism" is basically "don't be a dirty piece of shit and pack in your trash" and "don't shit in the middle of everything." What, does the lack of opportunity to take a dump in the middle of the mall really chafe your ubermensch morals?

>>952359
I've not read it deeply by any means, but I intend to later. I don't agree with everything stated so far, but a lot of good points have been made.

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ConservativeEcologist.pdf

>>954480

>our birthright

You're one entitled piece of shit

Check out Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey.

>>952359
It seems as though the argument you are actually looking for is conservationism vs protectionism. The political left and right are kinda all over the place with regards to the environment, but to make a loose connection The right is more conservation oriented while the left is more preservation oriented. I hope this helps.

>>956075
This.

>don't pave national parks
>don't cater to cripples and olds
>let indians be indians, stop subsidizing their decay
>throw rocks at rabbits

Conservatism is supposed to be based on conservation. Conserve your land.

File: IMG_2964.jpg (47KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x382px

>>955238
>I don't agree with everything stated so far, but a lot of good points have been made.

>>956106
Do you care to elaborate as to why you think I'm stupid, or do you just want to be an immature asshole and sling some insults?

>>952359
Currently, both sides are fuckin useless when it comes to putting together management plans.

File: 980x.jpg (56KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x376px

Physical Removal itself is protecting the environment.

>>954480
Say that to my face, not online, and see who gets nerve-stapled.

I am a right wing enviromentalist. I do a lot of hunting, hiking, camping, and fishing on public land. I don't want it sold, developed, poisoned, etc.

File: scouring_of_the_shire_by_discogangsta[1].jpg (216KB, 900x584px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 900x584px

>CTRL+F
>No Tolkien

I'm disappointed in every last one of you.

>>956775
This. Also to some extent Ernst Junger in his latter years

File: P1100462.jpg (709KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1632x1224px

>right wing
I assume this means hunting and fishing, and in NZ farming. I have lots of books about hunting in NZ, from the deer culler days, to the helicopter "deer wars" to modern books full of adventure about roaming the wilds looking for animals and the struggles that come with it. The books are full of modern day environmentalism, from the NZ point of view, and lament the "greenie way" of mass dropping poison into the bush that the left like to use. My favorite are from the "deer wars" era. look for
>The Chopper Boys and The Helicopter Hunters by Rex Forrester
>Injun Joe: the Legend of Smoking Joe Collins by Marion Day
>Aerial Hunter by Graeme Marshall
and for the old cullers look for
>Pack and Rifle by Philip Holden
>Hunting Yarns: Stories of the Challenges, Thrills & Excitement of "the Good Old" hunting days by Alan Hamilton
and a really good read is
>Pete the Bushman, Hunting tales and back-country lessons from a wild West Coaster by Peter Salter

>>956825
>mass dropping poison into the bush that the left like to use

Yes, doing things in an efficient and practical manner is something only the left will do

>>952359
From the Right Wing point of view this is called Conservation.

Bag limits, Game Preserves, Licensing fees, tax on hunting equipment.

The money pays for fish hatcheries, winter feeds of deer and elk, game warden salaries, game warden equipment, prosecution of poachers, wild life relocations (trash can bears), wild life repopulation (wolves and puma).

Etc. Look up Conservation programs if you want the Right Wing point of view.

The wild is a resource that can be harvested responsibly like a berry patch.

The Right Wing also supports National Parks. While also supporting National Forests and Bureau of Land Management land for hunting, fishing, wood harvest, and responsible resource collection (sand, gravel, gold, lava stone)

>>956840
kys you 1080 apologist

File: Linkola_Pentti.jpg (55KB, 500x503px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x503px

>>952941
my nigga

>>956775
I don't know about this one. His works weren't allegorical, and by the time he was born his neighborhood was already pretty well industrialized. He talks about this in his foreword to the second edition.

File: animalrights.jpg (276KB, 828x1153px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 828x1153px

You only have to look in the right places

>>956960
>At last I understand why I live in constant horror in my own country, to which I'm bonded: why I have the feeling that I was being punched in the face all the time. It is not purely caused because forests have been ravaged and shores degraded on the demands of the market; it doesn't arise from the vast number of paved and concrete surfaces itself, or the excessive garish shine of cars wherever you lay your eyes. It is because everything in this country is raw, smooth, obvious, polished, perfect. The most horrendous thing is that this country is in the grip of order, here everything is in order. The brush saw is the most dreadful of tools. Every grain of sand has been stamped with the additional sign of ownership by man. There is nothing mysterious in Finland, nothing gentle, no faint shimmer anywhere.

>For a moment, hope flashes in the groves of Vuoksi. Maybe sometime my Finland too, my
Tavastia, will look like this, and will be revived. The grip of the tormentors loosens. My homeshores, my homeforests, are green and lush again. But it is only a flash. That won't happen. The opposite will.

>I don't believe that it was good to see Karelia. Karelia is like joy, like the joy of human life
always is - you see a glimpse of it, and then it is gone. Sorrow always remains the uppermost
emotion.

I hope Linkola's complete writings get translated at some point. I know he has the reputation of a curmudgeonly asshole advocating the death of 90% of humanity, but his writing is at the same time really dense with a sense of melancholy and a true love for nature.

File: students-adolf-hitler-animals-nazi-dictator.jpg (77KB, 630x379px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 630x379px

>tfw you will never bask in Hitler's benevolent aura.

>>952359
>What are good examples/books of right wing environmentalism

Gamekeepers

>>952483
Wot

>>958293
He's saying you are a moron not worth saving and I concur

>inb4 wot?

>>958146

Linkola is a sad, annoying cunt who should put his money where is mouth is and remove himself from wasting the oxygen resources of this planet once and for all.

>>952359
Roosevelt