Written by Matt Frisch   

Why would ‘conservatives’ be in favor of tapping gas that has lain for all time under a mile of rock; in one staggering jolt converting entire rural regions to industrial zones; jeopardizing water, air and roads; bringing radioactive material from a mile underground into the atmosphere; opening the pandora’s box of mineral extraction on a massive scale; permanently polluting millions of gallons of water per well times 10s of thousands of proposed wells? Obviously, true conservatives would be adamantly opposed to hydrofracking. How could people who call themselves conservative be in favor of this sort of environmental trauma? But conservatives are told each day by the corporate media that this sort of massive exploitation of nature is opposed by liberals. Since conservatives stand on the opposite side from liberals on social issues, they must also stand on the opposite side from liberals on environmental issues. Of course, there is no real basis for this conclusion.
Why would ‘conservatives’ disregard the dire warnings of climate change coming from the vast majority of climate scientists; attribute scientific findings to a liberal conspiracy; be heedless of facts and figures; throw caution to the wind; insist on an American right to drive, drill, build and burn to our heart’s content; believe that moderation and limits to how we consume is un-American? Obviously, true conservatives would be concerned about climate change. How could people who call themselves conservative turn a deaf ear to evidence that the climate is changing and our actions are causing the change? They are told each day by the corporate media that this sort of accountability for the impact of human activity on nature is a liberal concern. Since conservatives stand on the opposite side from liberals on social issues, they must also stand on the opposite side from liberals on climate change. Of course, there is no real basis for this conclusion.
Why would ‘conservatives’ be in favor of exploiting every last drop of hydrocarbons the earth has to offer; disfiguring vast areas of Canadian grassland to extract tar sands; carving up the land to build a fifteen hundred mile pipeline across 6 states to pump the oily sludge to Texas refineries; putting at risk ancient aquifers along the pipeline route; telling the world that limiting carbon emissions is not America’s concern; throwing in the towel on any hope of controlling the out of control pace of climate change? Obviously, true conservatives would not deface the Canadian grasslands. They would not insist on extracting this marginal resource. They would balk at the disruption and risk posed by the fifteen hundred mile pipeline. They would insist on erring on the side of caution and limit carbon emissions as much as possible. They would not touch the second largest carbon sump on earth after Saudi Arabia. They would balk at irrevocably tipping the scale on climate change. But conservatives are told each day by the corporate media that liberals are against exploiting the Canadian oil sands and building the pipeline. Since conservatives stand on the opposite side from liberals on social issues, they must also stand on the opposite side from liberals on the tar sands. Of course, there is no logical basis for this conclusion.
Would real ‘conservatives’ be in favor of clear-cutting ancient forests to make 2x4’s? Would they be in favor of drilling for oil in the last pristine places on earth? Would they be in favor of off shore drilling after what happened last summer in the Gulf of Mexico? Obviously not. But since conservatives are on opposite sides from liberals on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state and gun control, they must also be on opposite sides on the environment. In fact, there is no good reason for this. Liberals and conservatives are natural allies on the environment. It would be worth knowing how our differences on social issues has somehow led to this environmental divide.