As I read what passes for the conservative philosophy these days, it amounts to a religious certainty that the environmental capital of our life support system here is infinite. There’s no way it’s even thinkable that humans could ever spend down that capital to where humans would face a choice of either having to depart from exponential expansion forever or putting ourselves into the environmental poor house.

Today’s conservatism has a high regard for rationality, provided it never goes anywhere near questioning this sacred principle of infinite expansion forever. Science is regarded as an employee of this principle. Science is wonderful as long as it’s being a good employee helping the expansion continue along at a good clip. But a good employee doesn’t interfere with management. That’s not it’s place. Hence, whenever science seems to be getting out of line and a bit headstrong, it has to be put in its place and let know who’s boss around here. Exhibit A: G W Bush.

That’s why the possibility of human caused global warming isn’t even allowable within the mindset of today’s conservatism. It’s in violation of the sacred principle that is the foundation for everything our conservatives want to believe with every fiber of their beings, that there’s no such thing as a finite bank balance of our life support system’s capacity to support us.

This is no way to run a spaceship, I think. You either maintain your spaceship in good order, or your spaceship will go kaput. When you only have one spaceship, that could be a problem. What’s so special about us that we should be granted a waver from this requirement of living? Because God likes the cut of our jibs or something? Since when has God ever prevented a people from spending their capital down to zero and going broke?

I don’t see this as being genuine conservatism. It’s more like some kind of wishful thinking dressed up in a suit to look conservative. As I read genuine conservatism, it’s a wonderful concept I really think we ought to try out. I really do. As I understand it, the idea is that you have a strong foundation of ethics. Ethics are the foundation on which genuine conservatism provides all its many benefits. From sound ethics, you get sound behavior at the individual level, the family level, the community level, the county level, on up throughout the society. From sound ethics, people behave well, a wonderful thing in itself but also having the benefit that you need a minimal amount of government interference in people’s lives.

These new environmental problems we’re facing these days are a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate how effective genuine conservatism can be in addressing problems. You start with good solid environmental ethics well informed with the best science we can do. From there you go to sound behaviors from people. The end result is a sound environment, healthy people, and with a minimal amount of government interference.

Isn’t that a great concept? I wonder why what passes for conservatism today is so hostile to this approach.