Are conservatives in favor of finding renewable sources of energy or cleaning up our environment?
820726
Yes. In a responsible way.
1123644
I would say it is the opposite if you categorize it by political party but it actually most likely crosses party lines.  In terms of Environmental extremists who think we are destroying the planet just really don't know the facts at all.  People who supposedly "don't care about the environment" just have a better understanding and know that we are not destroying the earth and don't see a need for a call to global saving action.  The have basic concerns like local pollution, littering, clean water things like that, everyone cares about things like that.  But the notion that we control the environment and global climate change etc...is ridiculous.  I would advise more people educating themselves on the facts and be rational not relational.  A great book to read is Trashing The Planet by Dixie Lee Ray as a starter and she lists several good resources that area also good things to read.  I gained a lot of knowledge after studying environmental effects for over 2 years and writing a report on my findings.  As far as Al Gore and George Bush, Bush far better understands the truth behind the environment and knows a lot of what Al Gore says is not true or accurate.  So why would he waste his time dealing with things that are not as dire as they are believed to be.  \n\nA few missed facts:\nThere are more trees in the U.S. now than there were 100 years ago.  \nThe Earth is a remarkable machine that has a self-cleansing process to digest much of the pollution produced.\n"A 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\n(IPCC)... wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide\nannually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and\nanother 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the\natmosphere. Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6\nbillion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more\nthan 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide."\nRain Forests while nice to have are not the only source for oxygen production on Earth. in fact the comprise a small amount of area globally to influence much.  50% of oxygen production is done in the oceans.  I am not saying I don't care about rain forests but that they are dynamically changing naturally and if they were gone our climate would not be as effected as some would have you believe.\n\nThese are just a few points.\n\nI really have to agree with retrotrancer.  I too remember the pending ice age scare.  One of the large contributors to this movement was Paul Ehrlich who was also the dooms-dayer about a population boom.  He has been proven so many times, and yet honored by the Sierra club, world wildlife fund, and numerous other organizations.  He then in the 80's was talking about global warming not cooling.  They have no clue.  Read the book Eco-scam from by Ronald Bailey.  This is the thing with libs, it doesn't mater if you are right or wrong just if you feel and are caring.\n\nEnvironmental extremist just don't know the facts.  They are so far off on so many points it is unbelievable.  I have to believe the only people who still believe in this stuff just have not taken the time to really look into it but just listen to the info given to them from the Media or liberal agendas.
289079
Oil does rule all politics unfortunately. But can I suggest a simple alternative that we could all see as common sense? Use wind or wave power to generate electricity. Use this energy to split water into its prime components. Let oxygen into the air. Burn the Hydrogen in our cars and have water as the resulting by product. You could almost make this work in your back garden! We would only need lubricating oils then which could probably be created from vegetable sources!
866795
In some places, the environment was a campaign issue.   The Chairman of the House Resources Committee, Richard Pombo (R-CA-11), lost his seat because of his agenda to sell national parks, gut the Endangered Species Act, and drill in ANWR.  Environmental groups threw money and support behind Jerry McNerney, an alternative energy engineer who won the seat.\n\nFor further evidence, look at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which for years was Chaired by James Inhofe (R-OK), who thinks global warming is a hoax.  When the Democrats take control in January, the new Chairwoman is Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who believes global warming is the most important issue facing our generation.\n\nEven though the environment was drowned out by issues like the Iraq War and immigration, there is still a big difference between the environmental agenda of Republicans and Democrats.  Still, with a slim majority and a Republican President with veto power, don't expect too much change right away.
317053
disagree. fine those who ruin the environment use that money to give tax breaks to clean companies and business.
437877
It is possible, but it will be a difficult road.  <---Get it.\n\nFirst Ethanol is a very small baby step, it won't save us.  It might burn cleaner and take slightly less oil to make, but the horrible gas mileage make you have to use more of it to get where you're going.\n\nHybrid technology is on to something.  Electricity is the way to go.  With the advancements of battery & motor technology, you will soon see electric cars and trucks out perform the internal conbution engine.  The current problem is the high voltages necesary to drive those motors make these cars potentially very dangerous for mechanics to repair.  They can also be very dangerous in an acident.\n\nSo my solution is nuclear energy.  But this scares too many people.  All you have to do is build several plants out in the desert that will provide enough electricity to power everything including: heating/cooling, transportation, manufacturing, and comercial consumption.  \n\nThis will make us more ecconimically independant (richer) so that we can develop better ways of cleaning or disposing of the nuclear waste products.  My vote is shooting it into the Sun.\n\nBush's solution really isn't one.  He has to politicise the issue to placate the American people while allowing American companies to retool, research & develop, and create a delivery system for a new power source.  The current problem isn't the alternate energy source as much as it is how do companies sell us that new source.
148212
I am sure the term "environmentalism" does not go back that far.  As to people who were concerned about their environment, I expect most farmers were, and certainly people who were responsible for forests.  It did not become an academic discipline to be taken seriously until the time of Rachael Carson.  "Conservation" was a term used earlier, and the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, among others, took that seriously.
563432
I would like a 3rd party-(CONSERVATIVES)-
218141
A neoconservative isn't a conservative at all. Neoconservatives believe in an all powerful government which intercedes in the lives of all its citizens on behalf of big business and extreme right-wing religous zealots. The economic and military conquest of the planet is the ultimate goal of Neoconservatives by any means necessary.\n\nPaleoconservatives, or traditional conservatives, if you prefer, believe in small central government with the majority of power given to individual states and municipalities, minimal government spending, and the idea that the government should stay the hell out of people's personal lives.
223955
YES YES YES!\n\nThe only way to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil in the near future is to drill for more oil HERE!\n\nIf the tree huggers don't like it tell them to stop driving cars, using electricity and heating their homes so there is more oil for the rest of us.\n\n****\n\nHey Gonzo, If by conservation you mean saving every bug, animal and tree on the face of the earth so you can have a pretty view as you drive your SUV through the country yeah I've heard of that. If left up to you folks we’d all be living out in the woods singing kumbuya hugging the trees, eating mushrooms, berries and getting eaten by wolves and bears. \n\nThis nation needs energy. Currently our best source of energy comes from oil, coal and natural gas. Now, if you can come up with a better way to get those things out of the ground with out harming all of your bugs and trees I'd love to hear about it. After we're done pulling all the resources out, so you can be nice safe and warm in your home.  I'm all in favor of planting trees there, they do grow back you know...  As for me when I have to choose between heating my home and saving a tree or the squirrel that lives in that tree. The tree and the squirrel are going to loose every time.
1045912
Against.\n\nThey just blew up the old power plant near me (in Oregon), and that one was only running for, like, 20 years.  I don't think we have a high demand for energy in this state, so I would be against, since it would be pointless.\n\nWe get our power from dams...the ONLY clean power. (Okay, wind too, but that doesn't count.)
1053663
Conservatives get up every morning and make coffee with clean, filtered water because those damn Liberals protested for clean water standards.  Perhaps they eat some bacon and eggs for breakfast, which are free from synthetics, such as antibiotics and growth hormones, because those damn Liberals protested for standards for raising livestock and poultry.  After showering in the aforementioned clean water, Conservatives get dressed in clothes made with “no sweat” and social responsibility because those damn Liberals protested against the slave like conditions of sweat shops and for child labor laws.  Conservative step outside and take a breath of fresh air because those damn Liberals protested for clean air standards.  Conservatives drive to work in their fuel efficient cars because those damn Liberals protested for fuel economy and alternate sources of fuel.  When the Conservatives get to work they smile, proud for achieving all that they have all on their own.  Those damn Liberals have never done anything for America.
107141
I am guessing you are asking about environmental conservation.  Certain natural resources are limited.  If we use them wisely, then they will be available for a longer period of time.\n\nThere is a limited amount of oil in the ground, for example.  If we use it up, we will not have it to heat homes and power vehicles.  One way to conserve, would be to find other ways to heat homes and run motors.  Solar power, wind power and now biofuel are ways in which people are trying to do this.  Another way to conserve would be to use less heat in our homes and find other ways of travel, instead of cars.\n\nFrom my point of view, the most important environmental resources are clean air and clean water.  If you pollute those resources then nothing will live - people, animals, plants - we all need clean air and water.\n\nTrees help clean the air, which is why it is important to have forests and parks, so the trees can consume the carbon dioxide we breathe out while they breathe out the oxygen we breathe in.
609686
I think that nuclear energy source is a viable energy source as long as we do everything we can to make it as safe as possible.  If we do nothing to find new energy sources our economy and our way of life can deteriorate.
706483
I think he has done more for saving and  protecting the natural resources including plant and animal species as well as their habitat for the future. He has done more for fisheries and wildlife management, water, soil conservation and sustainable forestry than anyone else in our country and if I think if you knew anything about pollution you would care. He has always for 20 years fought for tough pollution laws, the things that trillionairres and there newspapers buddies would not give two shits about. You just cant beat on a man who truly has TRIED to look after our land at the most basic level.  If you do any kind of research on Al Gore, you will find from day 1, if there was one thing he tried to do, that was protect the land from people who would destroy it for profit. Al Gore Talking about Global warming and pollution is not a recent political thing, this has been his passion for many many years, it just didn't make headlines like it should have before. And I respect him for that and so should you.\n\nPS he was one of the leaders who fought for funds for more research for the Internet, The Internet was first a NASA project\n\n\nPSS: Occidental Oil Company............ Was a company his father was given stocks in because he was their Attorney, which he handed down to his son, which he in turned sold? But once again, you miss the point, for one thing, it doesn’t not matter in so much what you own, but what you do with your company. And that does not in ANY case change the fact that he has looked out after out environment. I never mentioned anything about elections or politics, I mentioned issues!   What I find AMAZING are these people who go against him are probably, much worse off now, and just plain to stupid to realize it, You know it is a fact, they even had a special on the BBC on how the NEOCONS target the uneducated, misguided and unhappy people, and tell them Clinton and the liberals are why they are so unhappy, and because they are so misguided and uneducated and unhappy, they believe it. AMAZING !!!
727744
Where's the confusion.  When you take a creator out of the equation, we all become animals.\n\nIt becomes arrogant to assume humans have some intrinsic importance.\n\nPersonally, I do not think the liberals should get to have dominion over this issue.\n\nAs stewards, I think conservatives need to show more interest in public support of some conservationist efforts.  Many of us just do so quietly, without fanfare.
1102254
Libertarians believe only a free-market solution will save the planet. The Green Party knows free-markets are killing the planet.