Environmentalism has become as fractured as any of the other issues that get twisted up into the political machine. Things like environmentalism should not be a political wedge, as the ideology becomes more important than the issues, facts, and reality. It puts forth emotional, feel-good policies that are not based in facts and logic, causing unintended but critical repercussions.
The science is not settled on global warming, climate change, or climate disruption; however, it is what political pundits, politicians, and activists keep repeating, despite it being a falsehood. Allocating tax dollars towards a plan based off of the unverified research of a kid whose claim about straws in primary school is neither completely factual nor logical. It takes away from programs that do help with cleaning our Earth, water, and air. CO2 is a building block of life, not a poison. We need to focus on the wide array of contamination that is harmful to us, animals, and plant life.
The efforts to save species of plants and animals with little effort to understand what the effects are has been the epitome of the current hipster-environmentalism we have been seeing. For example, policies California implemented with forestry management or, in this case, lack thereof, have contributed to the increase in forest fires in the last decade. Without forest management, those fires happen more often and cause much greater destruction. When foliage, trees, and bushes that have died are just left to rot it becomes readily combustible kindling. The feel-good policies of leaving nature alone without understanding the repercussions of mitigation removes our ability to be good stewards of nature.
All this outrage culture has done is taken resources away from real research for solutions and funds to enact those solutions that would achieve its stated goals. This is as prevalent in environmentalism as it is in energy, law enforcement, and the economy to list a few. Much like food, the ones that are the best for you do not taste the best. We need to have a similar understanding in regards to policy. Feel-good policies like that of California are like a diet of sweets, eventually you’ll face a real and deadly conclusion that could have been avoided by eating your veggies.
We need to look at solutions and policies that will do good even if it does not make you feel good at first. We also need to look at other solutions, such as geothermal energy, to make use of Colorado’s vast geothermal vents in the state along with hydro-electricity with low impact locations for dams to facilitate it. Additionally, nuclear energy is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels. The mass amounts of water and resources needed for nuclear back in the 1950’s is not the case today. European nations have developed more efficient nuclear power plants while using much less water for cooling reactor rods.
Two things libertarians and most conservatives agree on: small government and the free market. They differ when it comes to regulation of the market. Libertarians want free-market based self-regulation but not government forced regulation, whereas conservatives want a minimal level of government forced regulation. So, how do you enable free-market based self-regulation? Simple, remove as much government from the equation as possible and let the free-market thrive.