Are There Any Non-Liberal Conservation Groups?

A couple of weeks ago, ABC News ran a story about members of the religious right who are also environmentalists.

Here is a link:

Green and Godly Grow in Ranks

 

Good topic, majordude.
I'm often torn when election time comes around because I lean toward the left when it comes to environmental issues and towards the right when it comes to national security and core values.
I'm not a 'religious' person per se, but I do believe in the (God given?) moral conscience, and that we should make our decisions based on conscience and morality. That's one of the reasons I now drive a Prius instead of a sports car.
I know, I know...I'm still part of the problem. I still drive more than I should and consume more than I could. But driving a Prius helps me stay focused on the larger picture. We're not eliminating a problem by driving our hybrids, but we're moving in the right direction. Scott W.

 

I too find myself in a similar quandary. When it comes to moral type stuff I'm to the right, but more to the left with the environment.

When you think about it, it's kind of odd there isn't a lot more Christian environmentalists out there. If you believe God's Word and all, you then believe God created this beautiful earth and He gave us humans the responsibility to take care of it.

I did come across a couple of groups that believe just that...

http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/

http://www.restoringeden.org/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(majordude\";p=\"88046)</div>

Well, majordude, it appears we are more philosophically alike than I would have imagined.

 

I agree Majordude, I'll check out the links that have been posted in response.

When I ordered my Pruis stickers from Paul, I asked for a custom one for the back of my car. Picking up on the verse that the enviromental left tags as the basis for abusing the environment, I asked for "Stewardship Gen 1:28 Not Plunder." If you like it ask Paul for something a copy.

 

Sort of a side trip on this topic:

I give money to environmental groups that I feel do a good job with the funds

I do not give money to Greenpeace. They seem to be (or at least they were 5 years ago) all about making headlines, and little about actually protecting wildlife.

Their little stunt of hanging off the Aurora bridge in Seattle in 1997, trying to stop fishing boats from going out into the Pacific, ended up pissing off way more people than they "inspired". (Shut down traffic for 2 hours on the bridge. You could just feel the love. :roll: )

I know Greenpeace does some good things, and I'm sure there are committed, intelligent people in their ranks. But stunts like this hurt worse than they help, and enforce the negative stereotype of "loony greens".

Someplace I do endorse, without hesitation: The Nature Conservancy. Not only are they actively protecting important wildlife breeding areas for the future, but they work closely with the US Fish and Wildlife bureau, and do their homework.

They were one of the private organizations that worked on the Ivory Bill woodpecker investigation, and are actively involved in trying to keep their habitat from being infringed on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jfschultz\";p=\"88090)</div>

Seems like there are many of us in the boat of looking for a more conservative environmental group. I was curious about your bumper sticker though and I don't know which Paul. I would love to get one of those stickers and would be grateful if you could point me to a thread or person.

 

This is his original thread
http://priuschat.com/forums/pictures-of-my...ht=sticker+paul

 

The problem with most Environmental Organizations is that they DON'T care about the environment, they just care about being able to tell you how to think and behave, and they use the environment as an excuse.

Their underlying premise is what is wrong. MAN is a part of nature, MAN must exist in nature, which means MAN must use nature. Here in california ALL environmental issues are brought up ONLY to STOP growth not direct it in any meaningful way. It is a typical liberal tactic. Oppose with no substantive ideas.

a prime example is the difficulty in gaining de-salinization plants along the CA cost. Here in CA there is a group called the California Coastal Commission who are supposed to oversee the use of the coastline. Well when the De-Sal plants were proposed, the plants were to be located on sites occupied by existing power stations, the Commission said they wouldn't allow them since the increased supply of water would make it possible for more people to move to So Cal!!!!!!

This could go on forever, but, to sum up, If someone says "not here" they better dang well have an idea of "were" because people and there support facilities have to go somewhere!

 

The Nature Conservancy is about as apolitical as it gets. Their primary mission is to buy and hold property while a park or other group raises funds to but it from them. ALmost all the properties they purchase have (a) benn offer to the ultimate recipient, who is raising funds and (B) contains either endangered habitat or pristine wilderness.

In any event a good group, apolitical, and doing good work.

 

Might I throw in the old saying "Think Globally, Act Locally". Find something in your area you care about and support them. The big groups I'm sure are well intentioned, but too much money usually ends up in overhead.
There will be some group that isn't waaaay left that should interest you.

 

Some other environmental groups I've been impressed with:

• National Audubon Society (as well as some very good local branches)
• Ducks Unlimited
  • 
    Many of these have local branches (of varying quality), besides the national organization. We have an excellent branch of the Audubon Society in Seatle.
    
    Side note to obiwan: Saw the preview of Serenity last week. It's excellent -- it surpassed my very high expectations. (Whatever you do, don't let anyone spoil the plot for you!)

 

The Rocky Mountain Institute is an excellent organization. www.rmi.org.

They present good solutions to many of our challenges and stay out of the political arena.

 

Wow, a thread from other people that I didn't know existed. I am a conservative environmentalist and feel strongly about issues that both the Republicans feel they own and Democrates feel they own. Thanks for the links.

 

Guys,
You can be a Republican and an Environmentalist but you can be a Bush supporter and an Environmentalist. Bush has taken all moderation out of the Republican party. His strong personal/family/political ties to big Oil/Energy and the Middle Eastern countries will never allow him and the other crazed Neocons in his administration to wean this country off fossil fuels. He sold his "Moral Issues" to the Republican base for their vote and then proceeded to allow corporations to undo the Environmental protections that Clinton put in place at the end of his Presidency. Try Driving thru NJ where I live and see if pollution is down!!! Visit the ANWR in 10 years. Corporations are the real problem with the destruction of Mother Earth not the political parties. Unfortunately the corporations have the lawmakers from both parties (especially the Republicans) in their back pockets. Take a look at the resumes' of the high level staff members of the Bush Administration. Alot of them have ties to major Oil or Energy corporations. Halliburton, Unocoal, Chevron to name a few.
They have all made Millions of dollars off the Earths natural resources and they believe until those resources run dry there is money to be made. Bedamned the consequences, we'll deal with them later.

 

President Theodore Rooseveldt ® was one of the founders of the modern conservation movement. He set aside millions of acres of untamed wilderness for future generations.

There was a time (and there are very few of us still around) when being a conservative stood for conservation as well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ssmithri\";p=\"89622)</div>

Yes, Roosevelt set them aside and now the Bush administraion is pillaging them by building roads into the national forests so his timber buddies can clear cut them.

Labels don't mean much except to the news media and people who can't study an issue beyond a 5 second sound bite.

You can't call the current administration conservative because a true fiscal conservative wouldn't take credit for cutting taxes while recklessly increasing spending by 38 percent over 4 years. He's INCREASING future taxes.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lau...ilo/fedbgt4.htm