I can't remember the last time I heard a conservative utter the word eco without adding the suffix terrorist, unless they were talking about their bank account.

Most environmentalists are serious and professional with well thought out platforms and moderate agendas. They respect the constitution, love America, they vote, and are generally active in the political process. The vast majority have never spray painted anything.

As I see it, there are three main streams of environmentalist activity -

Conservationism - The movement to protect wilderness areas (this one I can see as extreme, it often comes with the desire for public land - a protosocialist ideal)

Environmental Health - Those who work to reduce air and water toxics

and

Environmental Justice - Those concerned that minorities bear an unfair amount of pollution.

I've even included links to some pro & con sites:

World Wildlife Fund
Environmental Health Network of CA
Anti-Enviro Site



Question for debate:

Why is environmentalism considered extreme?

or

Why do you consider environmentalism extreme?

There are people who are in the environmental movement who do not seem to be based on critical thinking. These can be people such as those who say, "Not on my land". It also includes those who decide the rules for public land from far away, superseding the opinions of those who live in a locale. It will be extreme to protect the niche of a specific species of fish while it may not be viewed as extreme to show it is a symptom of a larger issue of environmental change which effects many groups of species.

I do not think environmental issues are considered extreme. It is more the groups which seek publicity via stunts. Protecting the environment, which is really protecting the rights of third parties affected by the actions of others, is important.

The amount to which an environmental cause is considered extreme is in direct proportion to the inconvenience it causes others, notably hunters, fishermen, corporate and private property owners. When it starts costing them money or depriving them of hunting or fishing or owning land, it becomes "extreme."

Unfortunately, it is not only the fat cats who are affected negatively. In many cases it is loggers or commercial fishermen who depend upon harvesting the trees and the fish in order to make a living.

There are organizations such as ELF and Earth First! that engage in violent acts in order to make their point. But I believe the vast majority of environmentalists are not violent types. They want the beauty of earth and the quality of life--as in the ecology--maintained in the face of encroaching civilization.

I don't consider environmentalism extreme, but sometimes those who call themselves environmentalists act in an extreme manner. They are extremists, regardless of their seemingly benign agenda.

Let me rephrase one of your statemenst as follows.....

Most conservatives are serious and professional with well thought out platforms and moderate agendas. They respect the constitution, love America, they vote, and are generally active in the political process. The vast majority have never gotten overly excited over environmentalism, but like most of us do not much care for extremists.

Exactly right, it is the suffix that makes all the difference. There is a big difference between environmentalism and an environmentalist. Much as there is a big difference in being militant and military.

I do like the idea of groups of humans sitting around and bashing "sense" into each other, and like so many things this shares in that. I have always had a green sense as long as i can remember, and i came to find that its its on grove in the daily chemical explosion. Anyways, the green ethic houses many groups i would think, and to the mental that makes up americas conservitive group's', none of them seem to click. Like feminism, that is something conservitives in america dont really care for. Or the various other smaller religions that take to environmentalism for more kevin costner romantic type reasons. So that static in itself is yet more reasons on why being green is not something the conservitvive ethos likes such. One other point that one could bring up is materialism and its employment in the way a certain culture and or group survives and or likes or so on. Being green at this point is not fit in terms of making the mighty dollar. To people that want to use nature as a racetrack or for hunting that is not required anymore and or something else to curve thier boredom. Its funny how the health of a certain life form finds way to be visable, like antlers, and that then turns into hunting golds, which itself then degrades that life forms gene pool. Environmentalism is complex, which means education.

Various relgious foundations in the world do not think in terms of being green or that they are of this planet and or live in its environment. Basically it comes down to those reasons i think why conservitives do not care about the environment, and that other groups have to take up that slack in the areas of conservation, understanding, and protection. Which in itself of course will create gaps in a culture that is not uniform in thought, that whole relitivity thing i guess. There is nothing false about saying that if we knock out the environment, we suffer also. For all the groups of highly educated people that put out various reports of field research and so on, i still cant understand why this personal responsibility is shrugged off though, its like more or less environmentalism on a whole is put in the class of satanic communists or something.

Why is environmentalism considered extreme?

A movement is often defined by its most extreme groups.

When you have groups like The Earth Liberation Front, Earth First! link, even PETA and others link, all of the "mainstream" groups tend to be overshadowed.

Why do you consider environmentalism extreme?
I don't, but sometimes the well-intentioned goals are taken to the extreme. Man needs to live on Earth, too, and that is something that I think these groups tend to forget.

This (and, as you also mentioned, the measures they employ) is probably a true statement. However, to put it another way, this is basically stating that extremism occurs when environmentalist concerns start encroaching on the concerns and rights of others---ie, it is viewed as 'extreme' for those reasons.

For myself, I love the environment--grew up in Montana and Washington, where being outdoors was one of the wonderful facets of life there. As someone who is also conservative, I have always been frustrated by the supposed yin and yang of environmental vs. business and other concerns. I don't think they need to be mutually exclusive. First, business needs to realize that promoting the environment can often be a benefit, not a cost. Second, environmental groups should realize (and many have) that there are frequently business solutions to environmental problems (ie--buy the land, etc). Also, I think environmental groups would be able to accomplish more if they put forth proposals that made business sense (ie, doing this for the environment saves money or increases revenue through.....). One of the other reasons environmentalists are often looked at as 'extreme' is because they seldom seem to put forward compromise proposals: by definition, this makes their position extreme (just as business positions that allow no room for compromise on environmental issues would also be extreme).

I can't help but remember the article produced by the Earth Island Institute written by Gar Smith titled Fifty Difficult Things You Can Do To Save the Earth. Here are a few of his suggestions:

1. Bury your car.
2) Become a total vegetarian.
4. Have your power lines disconnected.
5. Don’t have children.
7) Don't build cars.
14) Spend a month tree-sitting.
21) Raise the minimum wage to a survival income.
22) Enact a maximum wage law.
44) Stop using toilet paper and Kleenex; use washable cloth.
47) Democratize your workplace; start a union or a collective.

http://www.earthisland.org/

I believe in a clean environment. I don't believe that mankind and nature have to be mutually exclusive. And I don't believe that socialism is the cure to environmental problems.