Conservatives Are the Real Environmentalists
Environmentalists are certain conservatives don’t care about clean air and clean water; that they’re happy to trade the planet for profit. Is it true? Do conservatives really care more about green pockets than green forests? Michael Knowles offers a much-needed new perspective.
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/conservatives-are-the-real-environmentalists
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! https://shop.prageru.com/
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9
Script:
I hate clean air and water. I don’t care how much companies pollute rivers and streams. I don’t even like trees. I just care about tax cuts.
Who am I? Well, that’s easy: I’m a conservative. Or at least, I’m a progressive caricature of a conservative.
But the caricature is absurd on its face. Conservatives breathe the same air and drink the same water environmentalists do. Conservatives love taking their kids to the same national parks environmentalists do.
In fact, the whole idea of national parks was created by a Republican, Ulysses Grant. The park system was greatly expanded by another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt. And the Environmental Protection Agency was, yes, established by a Republican—Richard Nixon. He liked clean air, too.
Conservatives want to conserve things. It’s right there in the name. And one of the things we want to conserve is our environment, because you can’t have a healthy community without a healthy natural environment. That wasn’t even hard for me to say. Because…I believe it.
Conservatives love the environment every bit as much as environmentalists do. The question is: What is the best way to protect it? And here’s where we have big differences.
The environmentalists say the best way—the only way—is through massive federal, and even international, regulation. Conservatives say the best way to protect the environment is by protecting property rights and encouraging innovation. Safer, more efficient power—nuclear, geothermal, biomass—anything that generates energy at a price consumers want and can afford to pay.
To the extent that government gets involved in conservation—say, protecting wildlife—it should get involved at the most local level possible, since the farmer, forester or fisherman in Oregon knows a lot more about his environment than some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. or Brussels.
So how can we tell which way works best?
Let’s examine the historical record. Today and for the last century, the worst environmental offenders have been big, repressive, socialist governments. This was true in the last century, and it’s true now.
China, for example, pumps roughly twice as much carbon into the air each year as the United States, even though the U.S. economy is almost 60% larger than China’s.
And how do those international agreements fare at protecting the environment? Not too well, it turns out.
When President Trump announced his intention to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, environmentalists warned of imminent disaster. Yet a year later, it turned out that the United States led the world in reducing carbon emissions. It did so without surrendering its national sovereignty.
Moreover, Canada, the EU, and China—all signatories to the Paris Accords—not only failed to live up to their commitments, but increased their annual carbon emissions. The EU released an additional 40 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air that year; China, a whopping 120 million additional tons—all while wagging their fingers at Uncle Sam.
Here’s what you won’t hear from your neighborhood Greenpeace volunteer: The left favors Big Government solutions not because it’s better for the environment, but because it’s better for leftism.
Take a look at the Green New Deal, an environmental proposal embraced by virtually every major progressive in America. Forget for a moment the impracticality of a plan that would outlaw most forms of American energy and cost $93 trillion dollars. Much of the proposal has nothing to do with the environment: socialized medicine, reparations for historical wrongs, and a jobs-guarantee program are just a few of the items on its wish list.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/conservatives-are-the-real-environmentalists
source
Conservatism and environmental consciousness don’t have to be mutually exclusive. While rapid phasing out of fossil fuels is unrealistic, I do t see why the USA can’t incorporate biodiesel and other things into our way of life.
“[They] want to conserve things, it’s right there in the name”
Ah, so then by your logic trans women are women, because it’s there in the name?
Cap bro its gay to like environment
0:35 The Republicans would have been progressive for the time. And Teddy Roosevelt was part of a progressive faction of the Republican Party, the Bull Moose Progressives. Teddy Roosevelt also later abandoned the Republican Party. Do those two honestly sound like they would like PragerU Conservatism? As for Nixon, while he WAS an environmentalist conservative, he was the exception, not the norm.
1:28 Yes, PROPERTY RIGHTS will fix the hole in our Ozone. I'm sure that the, like, two trees that the guy next door planted will save the environment. Also, all modern civilizations encourage innovation, PragerU is not unique for encouraging innovation. And nuclear power isn't especially safe either, and while I don't know much about the other two, I haven't heard any conservative politicians trying to focus more on those. Why didn't you even mention solar power?
1:51 Some redneck with a notebook won't be as professional as experts with college-level training with some of the best, most high-tech researching devices available.
3:17 That is one of the biggest lies I have ever heard. If the government of the largest, most powerful country to ever exist doesn't care for the environment, they will keep up their ignorant waste of nature. For example, reducing dependence on cars (specifically urban) would massively reduce carbon emissions. But reducing reliance on cars nationally could not be done without the national government.
3:43 Socializing medicine would naturally result in healthier citizens, which would result in less reliance from ambulances in case of an emergency, and therefore reducing carbon blasted out of the vehicle. I don't know about the reparations for slavery though.
In conclusion, this video fails to recognize the actual issue at hand, that reliance on oil and gas will be a catastrophe, and that the only way to save the environment is to stop the extreme rising temperatures right now is to halt carbon emissions.
The socialist governments mentioned in the video weren’t democratically elected, that’s the key difference. I would much rather trust a democratically elected government to protect the environment than some private corporations nobody elected
Liberals only say we hate the environment because we don't go along with their solutions. In their mind their solution is the only right solution and opposition to it means opposition to protecting the environment. This is an incredibly narcissist take, of course. It shames us into going along with their radical solutions that don't actually do anything.
Their "solutions" just centralize more power to the government. They end up over regulating our economy and they motivate the companies to send their jobs overseas. Now short term, we get better air since the companies aren’t here pumping fumes into the air. But in the long run for the globe? It gets worse. They end up allowing China and India to continue pumping metric tons of pollution into the environment. If we kept those jobs in the U.S. we could've monitored them with proper regulations and proper laws regarding labor. Many third world countries don't have these…So overall…liberals just ship our problems overseas which makes the problem even WORSE!
I love the environment
So the best way to protect the environment is to frack the hell out of Alaska, privatize the parks service, and blame others? Alright buddy.
Is Prager U being pedantic? This stuff is hilarious.
Source(s): dude trust me
Loved all of those conservative solutions he put forward. And yes innovation is how we solve this, thankfully conservatives are on the job heavily investing into developing renewable clean energy sources like solar and cold fusion. Also it’s so cool that fracking can clean up the environment by releasing less CO2. Normally when you get something dirty with something adding fifty percent more dirt to the mess only makes it dirtier. Neat!
I ❤ CARBON
Left wing: great thinkers, bad morals. They know a lot, but they judge horribly based on their wide knowledge.
Right wing : bad thinkers, great morals. They know little, but judge decently based on their limited knowledge.
Im technically liberal in providing education, but spiritually I encourage people to be conservative at heart.
Michael Knowles is a very good presenter and the content is easily understood
It’s hypocrisy to blame America for the pollution that Europe, Canada and China has done, I ever read that Canada is the country that most wastes water in the world.
Good video. 🙂
3:10am NZDT
1 December 2022
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ODe3HSMkHKM
The link is a response video
mans took a horse portion of sleeping pill making his eyes shut down as if he was on every relaxing drug at once
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/gcp_s14_2019_Projections.png
To the people commenting that they don’t like this video:
That’s fine. Now find me a solution that actually meets the worlds energy needs that involves only renewables?
Yeah, that’s impossible.
The video would be better if actually made fun of a group of people who want things but don’t realize what they want is actually impossible. Just like a lot of ideas on the left.
Did you know that NASA is looking for other planets? Did you know it's so bad? They must be stopped!
Mining operations have enough impact to affect the mass of the Moon in major ways Even if the Moon lost only 1 percent of its total mass, this would still greatly affect its orbit, or the gravitational force on Earth's oceans causing rising and falling tides and a lot of volcanic activity! Pollution would be a terrible problem if we mined the Moon the way we treat the Earth. The vacuum near the moon will be useful in all kinds of processing. If we throw gases at the Moon the way we do on Earth, we will destroy that perfection.
Worldwide, mining contributes to erosion, sewage, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, significant use of water resources, clogged rivers and pond waters, sewage disposal issues, acid mine drainage, and contamination of soil, ground and surface water, all of which can lead to Health problems in the local chaos and destruction here on Earth as well as the universe, the galaxy and the universe!
Seems exactly what was going on here on Earth, right?
Let's meet some of these agencies!
China National Space Administration (CNSA)
European Space Agency (ESA)
Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
Russian Federal Space Agency (RFSA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
This is a list of government agencies involved in activities related to outer space and space exploration.
As of 2022, there are 77 different government space agencies, 16 of which have launch capabilities. Six government space agencies – China National Space Administration (CNSA), European Space Agency (ESA), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (US) (NASA) and NASA Russian state space "Roscosmos" – with full launch capabilities (the ability to launch and recover multiple satellites, develop and deploy cooled rocket engines and operate space probes) and extraterrestrial landing capabilities.
The name given is the English version, with the original language version below. The given acronym is the most common abbreviation: This can be an acronym for the English version (such as JAXA), or an acronym for the native language. In case there are many abbreviations in common use, the English abbreviation is given first.
The founding date of the space agency is the date of its first operations, where applicable. If the space agency is no longer operating, the date it was terminated (ie the last day of operations) will be stated. In particular, the Soviet space program was not listed because it was not organized as a unified agency.
هل تعلم أن وكالة ناسا تنقب عن كواكب أخرى؟ هل تعلم أنه سيء للغاية؟ يجب إيقافهم!
عمليات التعدين لها تأثير كافٍ للتأثير على كتلة القمر بطرق رئيسية حتى لو فقد القمر 1 في المائة فقط من كتلته الإجمالية ، فإن هذا لا يزال سيؤثر بشكل كبير على مداره ، أو قوة الجاذبية على محيطات الأرض التي تسبب ارتفاعًا و انخفاض المد والكثير من النشاط البركاني! سيكون التلوث مشكلة رهيبة إذا قمنا بتعدين القمر بالطريقة التي نتعامل بها مع الأرض. سيكون الفراغ القريب من القمر مفيدًا في جميع أنواع المعالجة. إذا ألقينا الغازات على القمر بالطريقة التي نفعلها على الأرض ، فسوف ندمر هذا الكمال.
في جميع أنحاء العالم ، يساهم التعدين في التعرية ، والمجاري ، وإزالة الغابات ، وفقدان التنوع البيولوجي ، والاستخدام الكبير لموارد المياه ، والأنهار المسدودة ومياه البرك ، وقضايا التخلص من مياه الصرف الصحي ، وتصريف المناجم الحمضية ، وتلوث التربة والمياه الجوفية والسطحية ، وكلها يمكن يؤدي إلى مشاكل صحية في الفوضى المحلية والدمار هنا على الأرض وكذلك الكون والمجرة والكون!
يبدو بالضبط ما كان يحدث هنا على الأرض ، أليس كذلك؟
دعونا نلتقي ببعض هذه الوكالات!
إدارة الفضاء الوطنية الصينية (CNSA)
وكالة الفضاء الأوروبية (ESA)
منظمة أبحاث الفضاء الهندية (ISRO)
وكالة استكشاف الفضاء اليابانية (JAXA)
وكالة الفضاء الفيدرالية الروسية (RFSA)
الإدارة الوطنية للملاحة الجوية والفضاء (ناسا)
هذه قائمة بالوكالات الحكومية المنخرطة في أنشطة متعلقة بالفضاء الخارجي واستكشاف الفضاء.
اعتبارًا من عام 2022 ، توجد 77 وكالة فضاء حكومية مختلفة ، 16 منها لديها قدرات إطلاق. ست وكالات فضاء حكومية – إدارة الفضاء الوطنية الصينية (CNSA) ، ووكالة الفضاء الأوروبية (ESA) ، ومنظمة أبحاث الفضاء الهندية (ISRO) ، والوكالة اليابانية لاستكشاف الفضاء (JAXA) ، والإدارة الوطنية للملاحة الجوية والفضاء (الولايات المتحدة) ( وكالة ناسا) ومؤسسة الفضاء الحكومية الروسية "روسكوزموس" – تتمتعان بقدرات إطلاق كاملة (القدرة على إطلاق واستعادة أقمار صناعية متعددة ، وتطوير ونشر محركات صواريخ مبردة وتشغيل مجسات فضائية) وقدرات هبوط خارج الأرض.
الاسم الوارد هو النسخة الإنجليزية ، مع إصدار اللغة الأصلية أدناه. الاختصار المعطى هو الاختصار الأكثر شيوعًا: يمكن أن يكون هذا اختصارًا للنسخة الإنجليزية (مثل JAXA) ، أو الاختصار في اللغة الأم. في حالة وجود العديد من الاختصارات في الاستخدام الشائع ، يتم إعطاء اختصار اللغة الإنجليزية أولاً.
تاريخ تأسيس وكالة الفضاء هو تاريخ أول عملياتها حيثما ينطبق ذلك. إذا لم تعد وكالة الفضاء تعمل ، فسيتم ذكر التاريخ الذي تم إنهاؤه (أي اليوم الأخير من العمليات). على وجه الخصوص ، لم يتم سرد برنامج الفضاء السوفيتي لأنه لم يتم تنظيمه كوكالة موحدة. لماذا
Apparently, Michael Knowles is the guy PragerU brings when no expert on the subject wants to peddle their petty lies:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RfECzdHM-Mg
Lol tell that to Mr Trump
You guys are jokes
You would be real environmentalists if you didn’t pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
If conservatives are the real environmentalists, why have you guys nowadays openly advocated for abolishing the EPA?
I know how serious this video is. But cartoon Trump right at 2:30 made me laugh
This has to be satire.
Well why do Republicans deny Global Warming and Climate Change being caused by humans? Why are the republican states against the idea of banning plastic bags.
The best way to protect the environment here in the Americas, the most wild and natural continent that isn’t a desert, is to end immigration
All of the woke fucktards who have commented are hilarious! The moral of the story is that less federal involvement is better for everyone!
Maybe the real environmentalism were the friends we made in the way.
"National Parks was created by a republican."
That still doesn't change the fact that Environmentalism shouldn't have never been political because we all face the same problem. You shouldn't use other great people who believe into your political stance, to sway other from their current political stance.
This guy forgot the mention per capita emissions when comparing China to the US
conservatives want to *conserve* the environment, but its hard for them because the conservative politicians want to *conserve* the fossil fuel industries
"Fracking makes the environment cleaner [than burning coal]"
"Smoking makes your body healthier [than drinking mercury thermometers]"
I don t care on what political party you are, global warming and science should not be denied by any of the parties, especially when they are not actual scientists