Comments on: Reasonable thinking on the environment http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/ News and views on Utah public policy Thu, 16 May 2013 23:35:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Banning plastic bags: the next worthless eco-fad | Sutherland Daily http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1778 Banning plastic bags: the next worthless eco-fad | Sutherland Daily Mon, 14 May 2012 22:53:17 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1778 [...] activity and lifestyle choices in order to appease the demands of those driven by the misguided and radical environmental thinking of the left, regardless of environmental and economic realities, then the [...]

]]> By: The Reasonable Road to a Clean Environment: Avoiding Policy Potholes | Sutherland Daily http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1777 The Reasonable Road to a Clean Environment: Avoiding Policy Potholes | Sutherland Daily Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:12:59 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1777 [...] addition to energy development, transportation policy is another illustration of the damage that radical environmental thinking does to people’s lives and the hope that conservative environmentalism brings for crafting [...]

]]> By: Energy and conservative environmentalism | Sutherland Daily http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1776 Energy and conservative environmentalism | Sutherland Daily Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:25:25 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1776 [...] How we think about the environment and human beings’ place in it can dramatically impact people’s lives through public policy. This becomes evident when it comes to energy development and regulation. [...]

]]> By: Derek H Monson http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1617 Derek H Monson Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:06:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1617  When politicians co-opt “science” for political gain and to push a radical liberal agenda, it stops being science. Your statement about the “Earth’s ability to sustain life” is a perfect example.

The idea that you know enough about all of the magnitude and complexity of the Earth’s ability to sustain life that you would need to credibly make such a proclamation is wholly un-scientific. Most good, objective science is modest and restrained in its conclusions because those doing it are humble enough to know that they don’t know everything, even about the subject of their expertise.

In politics, however, there are no such restraints. We can make our political statements as grandiose and baseless as we want them to be, often without much in terms of repercussions. The first sentence of your comment is a great illustration.

As to the rest of your comment, conservation, in my view, still is the conservative starting point for the environment. For the left, on the other hand, it’s all about “preservation.” Unlike conservatives, who want to conserve natural resources for prudent future use, liberals/progressives want to “preserve” natural resources so they can never be used. Conservation is balanced and reasonable, “preservation” is extreme, unrealistic, and harmful to people’s lives.

Derek Monson

]]> By: Derek H Monson http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1775 Derek H Monson Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:06:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1775  When politicians co-opt “science” for political gain and to push a radical liberal agenda, it stops being science. Your statement about the “Earth’s ability to sustain life” is a perfect example.

The idea that you know enough about all of the magnitude and complexity of the Earth’s ability to sustain life that you would need to credibly make such a proclamation is wholly un-scientific. Most good, objective science is modest and restrained in its conclusions because those doing it are humble enough to know that they don’t know everything, even about the subject of their expertise.

In politics, however, there are no such restraints. We can make our political statements as grandiose and baseless as we want them to be, often without much in terms of repercussions. The first sentence of your comment is a great illustration.

As to the rest of your comment, conservation, in my view, still is the conservative starting point for the environment. For the left, on the other hand, it’s all about “preservation.” Unlike conservatives, who want to conserve natural resources for prudent future use, liberals/progressives want to “preserve” natural resources so they can never be used. Conservation is balanced and reasonable, “preservation” is extreme, unrealistic, and harmful to people’s lives.

Derek Monson

]]> By: rmwarnick http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1615 rmwarnick Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:41:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1615 I would say that the rejection of science by right-wing so-called “conservatives” is the principal danger to Earth’s ability to sustain life.  Conservation used to be synonymous with conservatism — now we have climate change denial, and crazy schemes to tear up public lands for dirty energy.

]]> By: rmwarnick http://sutherlandinstitute.org/news/2012/04/17/reasonable-thinking-on-the-environment/#comment-1774 rmwarnick Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:41:00 +0000 http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/news_old/?p=2991#comment-1774 I would say that the rejection of science by right-wing so-called “conservatives” is the principal danger to Earth’s ability to sustain life.  Conservation used to be synonymous with conservatism — now we have climate change denial, and crazy schemes to tear up public lands for dirty energy.

]]>