Why is being a Republican and an environmentalist controversial?

Question

I am a Republican who wants the best for the environment without restricting people from living "free." Renewable resources are great to use and renew. For instance, a private logging company purchases a large tract of land and decides to log it. Environmentalists try to block the logging because it ruins the local ecosystem. If they are not clear cutting and are replanting then why is it so bad to log? Someone help clarify. And please do not be rude.

Answer 1

Oftentimes logging means building new roads and loosened soils clogging waterways and impacting fish populations.  Logging in and of itself is not an environmentally-friendly endeavor, and many companies sacrifice environmental safeguards -- unless mandated by law, and the laws here tilt in favor of business -- to maximize profit.  Environmentalists (not a 4-letter word, by the way) serve to speak for the forest, which cannot speak for itself.

Tree farms have a far lower biological diversity than natural forest ecosystems.  It's a very complex system. Ruining ecosystems is bad for all of us in the long run. Taxpayers cover the hidden costs the government incurs in allowing logging to occur without fully covering the impacts that unfold down the road.

Answer 2

there's nothing wrong in being a republican environmentalist...the only controversial aspect i guess would be not following party lines

as for the loggers, it is an unreversable damage that they do to ecosystems and the environment,  for example the amazon has species UNIQUE to that region and there are many UNDISCOVERED species that could even help cure diseases like CANCER, yet loggers are still cutting down those trees, not only is it so unique in the sense i mentioned above, there are indigenous people who deserve to have the right to keep living in their ancestereal lands and keep their culture, and also trees don't grow overnight...it takes several decades for trees to grow as big as they now... and also trees are our filters, they take in carbon and put out oxygen

so how can people not get mad at loggers who are depriving us of nature, all those trees, species, and people have the right to exist and live where they grew and were born

Answer 3

I don't see environwackos complain when they move into their wood framed mansions

Answer 4

Logging, to use your example, cuts down trees that have been maturing for years, maybe decades, even centuries. Replanting a sprout of a tree is a step in the right direction but it will take years, decades, or centuries to regrow the tree. The mature tree will not only be the source for paper, or 2x4's, but will create oxygen and consume carbon. A large mature tree will do more of both.

A good republican would know that it is cheaper in the long run to make paper out of hemp and 2x4's out of metal than to upset the balance of nature. Every time man has tried to adjust mother nature mother nature has adjusted man instead.

Answer 5

No matter how you look at it, those trees have been growing for years.

the local ecosystem has ordered itself in order to exploit the resources those trees provide.

To nature, something as little as shade provided by a tree is a resource that promotes the lives of other organisms.

you thin out the trees, you lessen the shaded area, and cause the life that exploited it to be destroyed.

in turn, something else probably depended on that organism for shelter or food. so now you just effect another organism and another, and another..... hooray for them planting new trees, but it will take decades for that ecosystem to re-establish itelf, just in time to be destroyed again.

And to be realistic, unless you own the logging company, you have no real clue what kind of methods they were going to utilize. logging companies are notorious for saying one thing, and doing the complete opposite, or logging more than they said they were going to, and ripping off the land owners.

also there is this thng that oil companies usually donate a larger portion of campaign funds to republicans so they will lessen environmental restrictions.

Answer 6

I agree with you it is controversial to be a Republican and an environmentalist these days, and it really shouldnt be.  Caring for our environment is something we all should have in our policy, after all, it is where we live.  But your example is not a clear cut answer to me.  The forest even if replanted, would take years to grow back, and by the time it did, most organisms in it would be destroyed.  Not to mention, a lot of companies claim they do their share to help the environment after they tear it apart, but its just to keep the hardcore environmentalists off their back.  So theoretically your example makes sense, but it does not work like that in the real world.

Answer 7

Depends on what's there now.

If it's an "old growth" forest, it's not possible to replant it.  You'll never restore that particular ecosystem.

If it's been logged before and is "second growth" it's usually not an issue.

If you really looked at it, I think you'd find most serious environmentalists aren't opposed to logging in general, they just want to protect a few special places.

That is not to say some people won't oppose logging because they have a personal interest.  Like they live nearby and don't want logging trucks on the road.  They may try to disguise their "not in my backyard" attitude as general environmental concern, but it's smoke.

Answer 8

Caring about conservation and being a republican should be synonymous.

It's because we don't want the government running every aspect of our lives under the guise protecting the environment is what we oppose.

I like recycling but when we are using more resources to do the recycling than we are saving what's the point ! I just like a common sense approach.

Answer 9

Because most Libtard Environazis are too simpleminded to accept a more complex, thoughtful ally.

Answer 10

The main reason is because of the group mentality of politics and the core values of the party.  Politics has always been a group mentality.  Its more a matter of, you vote along with the group or else we are going to punish you.  Many politicians are faced with the moral dilemma of whether they should vote their conscious or risk losing their seats on certain committees that allow them to get certain things they want accomplished done.  Republicans for a long time have been a strong supporter of capitalism and business.  Whereas Democrats have been more to support the workers and the environment.  For the Republicans, that can sometimes mean supporting business positions even though it hurts the environment.  If the group of Republicans at large goes in favor of the busines, it can be hard for a lone Republican to go against the party without the possibility of sacrificing influence or a seat in a powerful committee where they can make significant changes or influence powerful decisions.  Sometimes the legislation that occurs doesn't occur because the majority wanted it but because the most powerful legislators (the ones that have been there the longest and have the most powerful committee seats) have pushed the rest of their party to conform to their viewpoints.

Try the process sometime in a class room and make about half the classroom Republicans and half Democrats.  Then see how others force or offer rewards for voting a certain way.  We did it in my high school government class a long time ago and the experience was eye opening.

Answer 11

Because of our divisive society.  I commend you for following your own beliefs and having common sense.  Being an environmentalist is obviously of huge importance and it is too bad that it has become a partisan issue.  This will hurt all of us.