The Left claims to care about ‘the environment’, while they don’t necessarily practice good stewardship. I think conservatives should really consider the issue of environmental conservation and stewardship as a responsibility of being Believers, and claim the mantle of being good stewards of the Earth. Besides, it’s smart politics.
Look how liberals are treating the beautiful state of California. And why was not a single person fired from the EPA responsible for the Gold King Mine waste water spill in the Colorado River? I’m being sarcastic of course, It happened during the Obama administration.
I’m a tree hugger, I admit it. I love nature and being in nature and I love animals. And I think as human beings who have ‘superiority’ over all other living species, even if simply by the gun, we should consider the well-being of the other inhabitants of this planet we live together on. If you’re thinking ‘Wait, I thought you were a conservative’, you’re right, I am. I’m so conservative that I jokingly call myself a ‘right of Rush conservative’. I’m no SJW climate change maniac and I think Goofy Greta Doomberg is a puppet.
I do believe in God, and as a Believer, I believe we as humans, and especially conservatives, should practice good stewardship of the blessings He’s bestowed upon us, to include the land and the animals thereon.
‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’ – Genesis 1:26
‘And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ – Genesis 1:28
If you believe in the Bible, it’s clear from these passages that humans were intended to have, for lack of a better term, supremacy, over all other living things. But we are supposed to have dominion over the land that He’s given us, not destruction of it.
What brought me to consider the issue of trees in this way recently is the topography of where I live – it’s beautiful, stunning in fact. From the incredible tree canopies of majestic oak trees and their romantic capes of Spanish moss; to the Elm, Cypress and Pine trees among others, these natural wonders not only benefit us humans by releasing oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide, but they also are habitats for other creatures, in essence their home. I learned of a parcel of land near me with incredible 100 year-old-oaks that is going to be bulldozed to make way for yet another subdivision, and it breaks my heart, and it’s not the only one. There are ‘for sale’ and ‘for development’ signs all over this area, and in fact, many same such areas are being cleared and housing and apartments and condos being put up.
I’m not against ‘development’ per se, and humans need to have places to live, but what I don’t understand is why the developers don’t build around the trees and incorporate them into their planning for the complex? After all, why would you destroy the natural beauty of where you’re building when you can use it to accentuate it?
In South Florida, for instance, massive shade-cover trees are cleared and Palm trees planted to replace them. It doesn’t make sense to me. And sure, birds can go from one tree to another and likely have the instinct to be able to do that, but there is another factor that many people wouldn’t think about, and that’s the animals on the ground that depend on those trees and the cover they provide. In my neighborhood, for instance, there are adorable little bunnies that poke out from here and there out of many of these miscellaneous tree and scrub groupings.
So what happens to them when the scrub is cleared? Can they escape a bulldozer and find another place to live? Don’t they have a right to live too?
Can’t these developers structure the new developments around at least some of the trees to maintain both the natural beauty, while also keeping a habitat for creatures big and small who depend on them?
These are questions that don’t have simple answers⏤land is a finite commodity, and if we’re mandated to ‘be fruitful and multiply’, we have to live somewhere.
I know that some who read this will say ‘why aren’t you talking about the rights of the unborn’ as much as you’re talking about the rights of animals? I do. I believe we can do both – caring about humans and animals. The point is that if we call ourselves ‘conservatives’, we ought to be thinking about ‘conserving’ the natural world as well as the material and economic to the best ability we have.
After all, if we cut every tree, not only will the critters not have a place to live, but we won’t be able to breathe either.
Comments