Shining Light on the Difference between Conservativism vs Environmentalism


August 24, 2014 by JImbo


Solar Plant Seeks Pollution Exemption to Burn Natural Gas

 Oops! Guess it’s not as cost effective as we thought. On the order of 8-9 times costlier than it needs to be to be competitive. After what… 30 years of technology development?

And then there’s the birds bursting into flame flying over it. I admit, I’m a bad person. I laughed out loud at the thought.

The understated way it was brought up just made me think of Monty Python. It’s just so ludicrous it strikes me as hilarious.

Anyway… back to the solar plant in Arizona. Imagine if we had a “fossil fuel” power plant adding another 95,000 tons of “evil” CO2 and incinerating birds in flight. Would the environmentalists not be in the streets with signs and protests?

There is an obvious bias there that goes against common sense and facts quite often. In fact, many diseases in third world countries are provably WORSE because of rampant environmentalism. Take the “evil” DDT for example.

There is little to no evidence of it ACTUALLY being bad. Subsequent studies in the last few decades can’t find the “evidence” that they used to get it banned. However, there is plenty of evidence that without DDT mosquito populations have soared and that has KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. (Maybe up to 20 million people)

If you read that whole article, you can see that just MAYBE it wasn’t a coincidence that millions of Third World people died through lack of DDT/pest control. Many environmentalists were big into “population control” by any means necessary.

Now think about who is against cheap energy. Are those same people against industry and modern production? Are they the same people who are against economic prosperity in the Western World?  Think it’s a coincidence that their solution is ALWAYS banning cheap energy and taxing “rich” countries to GIVE the money with no strings to “poor” countries?

They’ve been wanting to massively redistribute money that way for years and years. They’ve only been able to slip so many billions through as “economic support” or “economic stimulus” via the State Dept and United Nations. That would be PEANUTS compared to the TRILLIONS they could steal from the “rich” and give to the “poor” using “Global Warming” as an excuse and the “Carbon Credit Exchange” scheme as a tool.

I’m all for Conservationism. Hunters and those who love the Outdoors naturally are. If you love being outdoors, what is your motive to pollute and trash it with litter?

That’s NOT the same as “Environmentalism” however.

“Conservatism” is about preserving nature as a resource for mankind to use and enjoy. People enjoy it. As such, it has value. So, it will be kept and improved as a type of real estate.

“Environmentalism” rejects the mankind first focus and puts NATURE itself as the most important thing on the planet. It assumes that mankind must be subservient to nature. They are simply one of the animals and must go back to their “proper role.”

Where do YOU lie? Are you a Conservationist who believes we must save nature for man to enjoy?

Or are you an Environmentalist who puts nature above man on the “food chain” so to speak? That we are intruders on nature’s domain and inherently do evil by our mere presence?






2 thoughts on “Shining Light on the Difference between Conservativism vs Environmentalism

  1. Patrick says:

    Nuclear power is the best new power source. Proven over the years to be reliable. No co2s released. Can be built to survive hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. etc. Disposing of the waste is biggest problem. The Japanese erred by putting there pumps below the reactor so when the sunami came the backup pumps were already done in. Wind power is a joke so far. Too expensive and must have huge govt. subsidies, and must be replaced in about 5 years. Solar has possibilities and is cheaper, but getting it to whom needs it is a problem.


  2. JImbo says:

    The Hyperion class of small “solid state” nuclear reactors is one solution. They can be purchased by local towns and villages to provide regional power. Less reliance on a few, vulnerable bigger reactors and far less need for transmission lines across miles and miles.
    Pretty cheap and verified safe by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee. They are designed so they can’t “melt down” or anything. They just shut off.

    No liquid coolant or regular maintenance or need for big control rooms.
    They last about 7 years or so and then the company comes, picks up the old one, hooks up a new one, and you’re good to go.

    Basically a huge nuclear “battery” that can power a town.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: