I think that conservatives make these arguments in jest, or out of ideological faith, but really there may be some truth to them. Not in the Orwellian sense, but in a broader and more realistic one. Corporations that pollute resented the success of legislation like the Clean Air and Water Acts to curtail their activities, so they largely co-opted the environmentalist movement and message, while using the very engine of regulation--the EPA, Interior, etc.--to water down the laws and get what they want. The scandal at Interior over awarding oil contracts, at the very end of Bush's tenure, is a good example. But the same sort of thing (perhaps a little less extreme) was happening throughout Clinton's second term.
Now the debate has shifted from pollution to global warming, which is actually in the best interests of polluters since it throws the responsibility for environmental degradation back on the individual--even though the largest sources of contaminants are still corporate, and besides, without their backing no large changes can be affected. I am distrustful of corporatists-turned-environmentalist like Al Gore, but then, I am totally distrustful of any neo-con "solution" too. Bush's people would have had us all drinking crude if it were possible. We will probably not act enough to change the situation, and the earth will become sludge.
Now the debate has shifted from pollution to global warming, which is actually in the best interests of polluters since it throws the responsibility for environmental degradation back on the individual--even though the largest sources of contaminants are still corporate, and besides, without their backing no large changes can be affected. I am distrustful of corporatists-turned-environmentalist like Al Gore, but then, I am totally distrustful of any neo-con "solution" too. Bush's people would have had us all drinking crude if it were possible. We will probably not act enough to change the situation, and the earth will become sludge.