Okay, since you asked (unpopular, but I have karma to burn, c'est la vie):
This myopic focus on Trump ignores the real issue: Environmentalism is a secular religion, a theocracy, a dogma. Like any religion it employs circular reasoning to justify its existence, namely stemming from this assumption that nature is sacred, vulnerable and deserving of our protection. This faulty assumption is treated as a self-evident tautology and questioning it is shunned, the hallmark of any run-of-the-mill religion.
Environmentalism says it's not worth discovering fire because we would have to burn trees to use it. Think about this carefully: That's not a rational position but an emotional appeal. The thought process is "I would rather go hungry than hurt this poor tree," whereas that poor tree may have ruthlessly strangled the roots of nearby plants in its quest to thrive and grow. If you understand why this argument is irrational, you understand the basic flaw with environmental thought.
Extending that principle to the planet, we come to a foundational truth: Nature is a relentless competition between all organisms on the planet. This is a testable, provable hypothesis. Every modern day human can trace their ancestry to a person who out-competed other organisms. We are here today because successive descendants of our ancestors continued to pass a fitness test, surviving and procreating sufficiently to make us possible. Our continued existence depends on continuing that trend.
Aiming for sustainability hamstrings our ability to make progress and leaves us uncompetitive relative to our peers. Those who used fire out-competed those who didn't. Those who cut down trees to build farms, cities, countries out-lasted those who didn't. Those banded together to combine their ingenuity to get better, faster, stronger, heavily exploited their environment in the name of progress, are the ones ahead of everyone else. We did not start this trend, nature did. The rules of the game were established billions of years ago. It is sheer hubris to think we are somehow above or outside this meta-loop, a grand delusion that we are somehow masters of nature.
There is only one truth: Either we out-compete or we lose ground. Should we do the other things? Take care of the weak? The poor? The infirm? Sure, but if it comes at the expense of losing our competitive edge, then it won't matter what we do for them, because we won't continue to exist to keep doing it for them.
.... so you made up a definition of environmentalism so you could be against it?
environmentalism isnt circular. humans evolved to live and survive in a certain environment, and so we will be healthiest and happiest the better we ensure that that environment exists for us to live in.
some sample environmental works:
- making the river stop catching on fire so you can sail on it and fish in it
- removing smog so you can go back to breathing
- taking the acid out of the rain so it stops eating your car
environmentalism is a competitive edge in and of itself, but also is the foundation that the competition is built on.
fun fact kropotkin's entire thesis was "yeah so this is wrong social darwinism is always motivated reasoning"
and you can see it in your thing! Environmentalism is good because it turns out burning millions of years of information as well as our only source of medicine and life sciences is not worth you feeling persecuted because you wanted to have a dirt bike that smells awful.
It's sure not cost anymore! LCOE of solar is the lowest!
Even if you think environmentalism is stupid, that doesn't mean being anti-renewable or pro-coal makes any sense at all.
Renewables are also good economically, because they're... Wait for it... Renewable. That's a big deal.
Trump pushing clean coal and knee-capping renewables is bad for our economy. He is literally hurting the American people just to show the finger to liberals. If that sounds stupid, that's because it is.
