the need for environmentalism

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200810/politics-drilling-us-west-1.html

this isn't as technical as it could be, but is was written for Outside Magazine. but this is a good look at some of the environmental issues facing our region under the next president, who ever he is.

stewardship of our resources will be a major issue in the next 8 years, conservatives (hard core types) will still argue global climate change is a natural occurrence or at least we can't prove human causality plus God gave us dominion of the earth, so let's use it. not only is that idea short sighted, it totally misrepresents why God gave us dominion over the earth. not mention its just throws out good science (science is the problem, remember?). 

when it comes to environment, science and religion i won't throw around the word fact, but i will say, that the consensus of world experts strongly suggests humans have impacted climate change significantly since the industrial revolution (Dickens was on to something). not mention our consumption is at a minimum wasteful and therefore arguably sinful, and by no responsible definition does it represent biblical stewardship.

under the Bush administration public land has been under assault. it doesn't help when oil company execs are shaping our environmental policy (not to say oil execs are trolls, but to say conservation and preservation are counter to their vested interests). the value of clean, clear open space has been devalued as a matter of ideology by conservatives. preserving forests, mountains, plains, wetlands, marshlands, breeding grounds, migration by-ways, have become an unimportant part of living on earth. not that they are liberal causes, they just don't matter.

that is sinful.

longer term stewardship, let alone coherent policy has simply been off the radar, it has been an alien concept since 1994. not to mention the groups that do advocate for environmental  issues have simply become havens for the far left to stash their most militant foot soldiers. 

the Sierra Club was founded by John Muir, the greatest environmentalism and outdoorsmen that this country has known (he was foreign so, he can't the greatest we've had). he would be disgraced by the current composition of the environmental movement in America. but that does not absolve conservatives of responsibility for presiding over a government for 32 of the last 40 years in which the environment and science have been pushed out of sight and out of mind.

are carbons caps, subsides for clean energy and MPG standards really the evils we should be fighting at this point? the other side of these issues escape me. sure there is bad environmental legislation on the books. there is bad legislation of all types on the books. we've had a terrible farm  bill for decades yet it's the bain of no politician, don't fall into the trap that says. "we've been burned by wacko environmentalists before" so anything pro environment is bad.

there are many sensible measure that can and should be in place to preserve and conserve. first, public land should be a tightly held commodity.  second, preserving National Parks, National Forests, State Park and State Forests is as important as any other domestic issue, if not more important. third, conserving our resources through clean energy, responsible drilling and mining, public awareness and sound policy is not optional, it is imperative. and lastly, these are the exact issues in which government should take an active role. while public/private partnerships are ideal, where none can be developed government has the resources and responsibility to take an active role in preserving our environment and conserving our natural resources.