Great, they are both retarded.

its about net impact. flying planes places to make money to offset climate change can be a net positive for the environment. many celebs are all talk tho, most dont give back anywhere near enough to offset the environmental impact they have with planes, mansions, sports cars, any many other net losses. there's nothing stupid about being net positive for the environment.

Nixon started conservation as a federal government power grab lol.

I live in Ohio, where a Prius is a coal car.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 25 2020 12:10pm

you're framing the conversation in such a lefty way i cant be sure if you even realize it.

environmental work to leftys: "what law can i pass to fix this"

environmental work to anyone not biased: "what laws can i pass, or what can we do outside of the govt to fix things"

ducks unlimited, pheasants forever, and many other organizations work outside of needing govt grants to make an impact. we had annual river cleanups in my town that were organized by the highschool conservation club. highway cleanups outside of any govt scope, just volunteer.

but yeah, if u frame it as "why arent the right wingers, against taxes generally, pushing to spend tax money on the environment", then yes, environmentalism is a purely leftist thing.

I mean, I don't know how flying private jets is needed for anything really. You can get wherever you need to go commercially. Very very very few people actually give a shit about the environment and change what they do to impact is less.

you could fly commercial first class and take an extra 10 hours to get through an airport due to fans asking for autographs and hounding you. many just choose not to. the ones who dont offset this impact with cash are hypocritical idiots, the few that do are good people who are avoiding the public in a good way. if i was famous i'd do the same thing, fly private, and give back in other ways. i'd say there are MAYBE a half dozen A list stars that i'd say are doing it right. Leo, jason Mamoa (with his advocacy and work on single use plastics), and maybe a few more.

Environmentalism means regulating business for externalities with the state as the apparatus.

Putting bandaids in cancer, like conservation clubs and highway clean ups, is a way to feel good for individuals.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 25 2020 01:51pm

Antiscience shitheads are eligible, or these religious groups living in the 19th century
There was some groups like this too in europe, in the ... 60'

translated: i vote so i dont need to do anything else and i can sleep in on saturdays.

but sure, feel free to invalidate anything that doesnt line up with "the state is my band aid and it heals all wounds".

its just funny how "the right doesnt care about the environment" turns into "that kind of environmentalism doesnt count because it proves they care but i dont like it". the right likes to get their hands dirty, the left likes to pay others to do it while convincing themselves its for the best because honestly they dont even know where to start. its "i'll take my PC to best buy to get fixed" mentality with an added layer of faux moral superiority.

organizations like the ones you're maligning have been responsible for bringing endangered species back from the brink and turning sludge waterways into healthy waterways. but you're right that they haven't combated climate change very effectively. and all of those far right preppers living off solar and trying to ween themselves off of corporate food/energy sources clearly havent done as much as the average city dwelling hipster with a bernie bumper sticker......

Some issues lend themselves to private action and others don't. Fighting climate change or pollution is not something individuals will ever be able to effectively do on their own. It will require fundamentally reorienting our economy. This is something we could have started on in 1980 with government action on climate change, but no amount of individual action would come close to making a difference on the big issues.

The more fundamental an issue is to the economy the less likely an individual with lots of money can make a difference. Malaria can be fought by Bill Gates because it doesn't require fundamentally changing how others with similar amounts of wealth act.