I haven't supported so-called "environmental groups" for years; that's because they're moremental than environ. They conveniently ignore the fact that poverty is the root cause of environmental damage. They rant about the damage caused over a hundred years ago in America, yet believe that we should all be forced to return to the sort of life that precipitated such damage. That's mental, as in nuts.
Because only when a people become wealthy do they have the luxury of caring about the environment - and the means to remediate some of the damage of the past. And that is why, to the extent that conservatives want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, they are the true environmentalists. It's why Obama's War on Coal, and his unrelenting efforts to drive up energy costs, are doomed to failure. And it's why, contrary to his Grand Vision, he will never Save The Planet™ by targeting Americans for increased poverty.
Over at Watts Up With That, there's a piece by Willis Eschenbach that describes in very personal terms some of the factors contributing to ecosystem destruction. And here, too, it's demonstrated that the defining characteristic of said destruction is poverty.
Figure 1. Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy …
The above is an extract from his post, starkly demonstrating the divide. Haiti and the DR, after all, share the same island; the average income for residents of the DR, however, is roughly ten times that of the average Haitian. Clearly, "environmental consciousness" is inversely correlated with poverty.
Yet here in America, supposed "environmentalists" such as Sierra Club routinely litigate against anything and everything that might involve profit or job creation. Any time a tree is to be cut, there they are - or rather, there their lawyers are. This despite the fact that there are more trees in the continental USA than grew here two hundred years ago.
No country on the planet burns fossil fuel (coal) more efficiently and with greater environmental safeguards than the USA - yet Obama and his EPA want to destroy an inexpensive and plentiful source of energy in order to Save The Planet™. They want curbs on natural gas, as well. Their goal is to drive energy costs up so that "green sources" (wind and solar) can become competitive - and it's a goal that can never be attained no matter how much money they borrow in order to fund them.
Thanks to their efforts, wind turbines kill thousands of endangered birds and tens of thousands of pollinating and insectivorous bats each year. The wind companies get a pass, to go along with their subsidies. But should an eagle be injured at a drill site, the penalties can run into the tens of millions of dollars. And yet, oil, natural gas, and coal still must be used - because no matter how much money is thrown at the Solyndras and the Vestas of the world, they cannot produce, even at great environmental cost, reliable and stable energy supplies.
These policies are hypocritical at best, and evil at worst.
They are designed to destroy economies and to force individuals back into grinding poverty - and ideally, government dependence.
And organizations such as Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and a host of others are complicit in efforts to achieve these goals. The environment really doesn't matter to them, as their acceptance of the massive death tolls among birds and mammals due to "green&sustainable energy" clearly and unambiguously demonstrates.