Because environmentalism is mainly used as a scam to promote gay Communism.
Also because environmentalism tends to be promoted as a pseudo-religion and is always presented in a very hysterical way.
I actually do a little work with this. What I find, both in my own experience and others I've seen, is that Right-wingers are VERY interested in environmental protection when it is:
1) Presented in an evenhanded way: practical plans, understanding of tradeoffs, sense of responsibility, but not the doom and gloom apocalypse bullshit
2) Presented separate from some larger agenda, or adapted to their own values
Hence you actually see a lot of eco-fascists (who are complete faggots in their own way) right now. But you CAN do useful environmental activism with the Right. It's the environmentalists themselves that poison the well. I prefer presenting myself, usually, as a conservationist and animal cruelty person than an environmentalist and animal rights person.
Define environmental
Do you mean renewable energy?
Conservation?
Carbon emissions?
Waste dumping?
Climate change?
"Environmental" concerns are numerous and intentionally nebulous. If you say you care about the environment, that means buying into a snotload of postions, and if you're on the right, you likely find a lot them questionable at best.
Your post is a great example.
What green energy?
Solar?
Wind Turbines?
Hydro?
Nuclear?
If I say I support "green energy", I by default have to buy into all those postions when in reality only nuclear isn't completely retarded.
As for what environmental concerns the right would benefit from supporting, nuclear seems to be becoming more popular, and conservation and ecological projects would be popular as well. Who is going to say no to Bison and Elk nationwide again?
Because 1, it's been turned into a polarized issue by (((subversives))), and 2, all discussion of the issue has been turned completely fuckin gay by (((subversives))). Note that the far right cares a lot about preserving natural beauty by preserving forrests and reducing pollution while supporting existing, cheap energy and building up more nuke plants to take over from fossils fuels. I see that sentiment a lot in those circles and I think if the right wasn't so captured you'd see it there too.
I will not speak for others here, but I am very serious about conservationism, yet I utterly loathe the standard progressive "environmentalists" because they do not care about the environment at all. Every single one of their policies exist to fuck over white people, whether that's as petty as pushing paper straws when the vast majority of plastic pollution comes from nonwhite nations, or something as severe as outlawing gasoline powered vehicles to punish the population for a problem entirely out of their control. Many people seem to think environmentalists are stupid or misguided, but I think they are malicious, and the many seeming contradictions in their supposed "fix" for the state of the global biome are all readily explained once you realize that they are meant to fuck over white people.
Plastic pollution is awful, but we will call you racist if you talk about India and China. We need to reduce CO2 emissions but we will oppose nuclear energy at any cost. We want less industrial pollution but we will push for incredibly toxic lithium batteries to power absolutely everything. There are too many white people in the west using too many resources, so we are going to replace them with twice as many brown people so they can use twice as many resources. I know progressives whine about how petty the complaints about the paper straws are, but I would argue that the opposition is because legally enforcing such a worthless inconvenience is so infuriating and pointless, and many people are just sick of it. This is especially unfortunate as these actions are heavily damaging any pragmatic conservationist movements from taking root, since everyone is getting poisoned against the idea due to it being abused for malicious purposes.
I refuse to rub shoulders with evil cunts who hate me and everyone like me, and I do not believe for a moment that they actually care about the environment in any capacity. Thus, I do not associate myself with them.
I'm down for protecting the environment and keeping things as clean as possible, to the point that I'll even file complaints about them building another unnecessary car wash in the vacant field lot, instead of developing that land into a small park of some kind or even just planting some trees.
I'm down for actual recycling (not the scam we have now, where most of it never actually gets recycled at all) and will frequently reuse a plastic water bottle for weeks at a time.
I'm down for supporting doing smaller things, like not having your air conditioning on as high to conserve a bit more electricity.
I will not do retarded stuff like use paper straws or reusable shopping bags simply because some California-raised child whines about the sea turtles getting a straw up the nose, or something.
I will not avoid showering when I want or running my dishwasher or clothes washer simply because it's, "not full," and some retarded citizen from the coast was told they had a limit on how much water they can use.
I'm just a normal dude. I don't generate a lot of waste. Most of my, personal, "carbon footprint," is due to the electricity I use from charging my devices and playing video games and electric instruments. I do what I can where I can and I love to see nature preserved as much as possible. My wife and I eventually plan to move out to the country and raise some farm animals and grow some of our own produce as a hobby.
I'm not green by the media's standard but neither is the media nor most of the groups pushing green initiatives so they can get off my nuts.
There is no such thing as a "Environmental/Green left winger" to begin with.
Right-wingers are not delusional in the sense that they can tell with a straight face that there are problems with how certain types breed and how it causes turmoil in the environment. Lefties are utterly delusional and can't address that humans (and "humans") are like any other life form, the same principles that applies to animals can be applied to humans. There are sub spieces, you got dominant and recessive genes that carries certain traits that will affect the ecosystem.
If you were to write a book about animals, their diet, maturity age, skeleton structure and so on, what would you write about humans? How would you treat certain genes and their traits causing certain ecological consequences? We know that from a lefty perspective, you are not allowed to consider these things, since eugenics and racial segregation are on the table as tools to use if you actually want to conserve diversity an ecosystem.
If you see someone who has progressive/left wing views, and also claims to be an environmentalst, they are frauds!
A lot of people already touched up on many cases like:
- environmental policies being boiled down only to CO2 emissions and not focusing enough on other pollution sources.
- environmental policies being bundled with other unpopular policies and leftist ideology
- environmentalist groups doing more harm than good with their attacks and protests
- lobbying from industries
- lack of discussion about consequences of green tech and trade offs associated with it
- corporations bearing the brunt of responsibility for environmental damage and pollution rather than regular people targeted by most initiatives
- likely corporate sabotage of sensible initiatives
- academics and media losing trust of people
One big reason is the economy. States that vote republican tend to be more reliant on extraction of natural resources and agriculture. Both of these are at odds with environmental regulations. Protecting nature means limits on these industries and that hits the state's coffers as a result. Couple that with lobbying and you have a recipe for heavily-entrenched anti-environmental sentiments in the Republican party. Couple that with republicans typically being pro-lax regulations on corporations and they are a natural enemies of environmental policies.
Another is the terrible messaging. It tends to target regular people and often in the most hostile way and reliant on exaggerations. Cars are a good example. Since I remember message of "cars are bad" took all the spotlight and rarely it was "cars need to be more fuel efficient." Lately the push for development of public transit options got hijacked by fuckcars crowd, and they so annoying they sabotage initiative they claim to care about.
Inconvenient Truth added on to the politicization of the whole issue. The movie would be better off if they did not cast the Gore as a messianic figure and gave hims as much spotlight as they did the global warming.
Then there are the real inconvenient truths like local cultures and the degree to which they promotes over-consumption. Two obvious signs of that are obesity and large car ownership. For one reason or another, republican states tend to have higher obesity rates. If you point out to fatsos that their lifestyles are bad for the planet, they get very butthurt. Not that the liberal environmentalists would do it, as it goes against body positivity. Large car ownership is more sensible but over the past decade or two owning a pickup truck became entangled with conservationism and the bigger the truck the better. Now we are in situation where people feel obliged to get an oversized pickup truck that they only drive to the grocery store and an office job. If you try to say anything about them, it's an attack on conservative values. Not that liberals are saints either. Cities they dwell in are not good for environment either, nor are the excess resources trannies require, unchecked immigration, and importing food from across the world or heavily processing it so vegans can sustain their retarded lifestyle.
Last reason is political polarization. A lot of republican voters are anti-democrats. Anything democrats support needs to be opposed wholesale without giving it zero consideration. That harms any good policies democrats might propose. This isn't isolated to the right, of course. Left engages in this behavior just as much. Environmental policies became associated with democrats and a lot of republican voters oppose them just because of that.
