Folks in the news media are in the habit of characterizing policies that weaken environmental protections and promote the exploitation of America’s natural resources as “conservative.” They use the term as shorthand for policies favored by Republican elected officials. Anti-environment politicians on the right also adopt the “conservative” label to give gravitas to their agenda. The problem is that such mislabeling belies a profound ignorance about what genuine conservatism really is. It’s no accident that the words “conservative” and “conservation” were derived from the same root word, conserve. Ronald Reagan once rhetorically asked “What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves?” Conservative political theorist and author Russell Kirk put a finer point on it when he proclaimed “Nothing is more conservative than conservation.” And poet/author T.S. Eliot emphasized a faith-based rationale for conservation when he wrote, “A wrong attitude towards nature implies, somewhere, a wrong attitude towards God.” The Foundation The connection between conservation and conservatism has its roots in the very first expression of modern conservative political thought. Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was an Irish born English statesman who is widely regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. Burke described human society as a partnership, not only between those alive today, but between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born. Therefore, those of us here today have a duty to those who will come after us — and that includes a duty to be good stewards of our God-given natural inheritance. In that context, Burke placed a high value on prudence. Being prudent means exercising good judgement, self-discipline, and forethought, not merely acting on...
Let’s start with something simple. If the federal government can’t afford to maintain what it already has, why would we take on more? Right now, the U.S. Forest Service is responsible for more than 368,000 miles of roads across our national forests, and it’s already falling behind. There’s a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog, and that number keeps growing. It doesn’t make much sense to start building new roads deep into remote, undeveloped forests. But that’s exactly what could happen if the Roadless Rule is rolled back. And here’s the part people don’t always realize. These projects often don’t even pay for themselves. In many cases, taxpayers are footing the bill for roads and logging operations that wouldn’t be profitable otherwise. The federal government frequently spends more preparing timber sales and building logging roads than it brings in from selling the timber. Altogether, logging on national forest lands is subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of roughly $2 billion every year. That’s not a free market, it’s a taxpayer funded free ride. The Roadless Rule, put in place in 2001 after extensive public input, helps prevent that kind of unnecessary spending. It protects nearly 58 million acres of national forest land by limiting new road construction and large-scale commercial logging in undeveloped areas. But it’s not as restrictive as some make it sound. The rule still allows for wildfire response, fuel reduction, and targeted restoration work. In other words, we can still actively manage forests where it makes sense without opening the door to costly, large-scale development in remote areas. The Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, has been peddling the...
David Jenkins, Guest Commentary As a lifelong conservative who has spent decades working on energy-related issues, including serving as a campaign surrogate on energy for John McCain’s 2008 presidential run, I recall that our ethos on energy has been solidly rooted in the catch-phrase “All of the Above.” That phrase is in keeping with a genuinely conservative belief in the free market and its ability to drive investment to the smartest and most cost-effective energy technologies. Not only is that approach naturally suited to keeping our energy costs low, it also can best ensure that America leads in the global race to dominate future energy markets. So, why on earth have so many Arizona elected officials suddenly abandoned the All of the Above approach in favor of whacky, hairbrained energy cancel-culture? And how ironic is it that the energy source being cancelled in the sunniest state in the union is solar? Read the rest of the op-ed at the Arizona Capitol...
Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship President David Jenkins examines the “drill, baby, drill” slogan and why it doesn’t fully reflect today’s energy and economic realities. While often used to argue for expanded fossil fuel production, the issue is more complex, shaped by global markets, infrastructure limits, and changing energy demand. The op-ed also highlights the growing role of cleaner, competitive energy sources and why long-term energy security requires practical, forward-looking solutions rather than slogans. Read more here:...
Every year, Earth Day puts a spotlight on the environment. There are a lot of conversations and a lot of messaging, but at its core, the idea is simple: We are responsible for what we have been given. At Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship (CRS), that belief drives everything we do. Stewardship is not a trend or a talking point. It is a responsibility that comes with using and benefiting from our natural resources. Ronald Reagan once described Earth as “this magical planet of ours.” That mindset matters. When you recognize the value of something, you are more likely to take care of it. Not out of obligation, but out of respect. The Risk of Short-Term Thinking History has made it clear that resources are not unlimited. Theodore Roosevelt warned, “We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so.” That reminder still matters today. When decisions are made with only the short term in mind, the long-term consequences do not disappear. They grow. Stewardship Means Balance Taking care of the environment does not mean shutting down growth. It means being smart about how we grow. It means: • Using resources responsibly • Making sure impact and accountability go hand in hand • Protecting what cannot easily be replaced As Barry Goldwater said, “We must not allow our natural resources to be destroyed.” That is not a complicated idea. It is a practical one. What This Looks Like in Practice Stewardship shows up in real ways. It means making sure taxpayers are not left covering environmental costs they did not create. It means...
