The attitude surrounding resource extraction is far closer to " I don't really care about the environmental costs, show me the money" than most conservatives are comfortable accepting. The attitudes surrounding resource preservation and "environmentalism" are far closer to "No resource extraction/molestation of Mother Earth is ever acceptable," than many progressives would like to admit.
We like to view complex issues in simple terms that make it easy to label and caricature someone who holds a different viewpoint than us or accepts the label of a different tribe. I wonder if either side would be happy seeing the logical consequences that would follow unhindered implementation of their world view?
@Gerald Martin did a wonderful job of articulating my thoughts on this issue. We don't live in a vacuum, and in "getting mine", I stand a good chance of infringing upon someone else's established livelihood and/or quality of life. There are examples abound of economic windfalls having a profound impact on people and/or the environment. Is it worth it? I don't think there is a black and white answer. One of my nephews makes a very good living working at the Stillwater Mine, despite only a high school diploma. Another is making a very good living in the gas fields of the Wind River Basin. I'm happy for them, but their industries certainly have impacts on wildlife, water quality, air quality, and someone else's quality of life.
@375H&H referenced the economic prosperity strip mining and a coal fired power plant brought to SE Montana. Without a doubt, Rosebud County benefited from this. However, some folks have paid a price, and have had to fight long and hard to keep the mine and plant from impacting their livelihood.
PPL Montana and an environmental group agree that coal ash from power plants should be regulated, but they differ on which option under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency is
billingsgazette.com
The proposed Otter Creek coal mine and Tongue River Railroad posed serious threats to agricultural interests. The Northern Plains Resource Council fought this for years. But wait, aren't they keeping others from "getting theirs"?
I used to spend a lot of time on the upper reaches of Belt Creek, near the Hughesville and Barker mine sites. The creek is finally healthy again. After all, clean water is necessary for someone to be a "broke dick fishing guide". Or, maybe the clean water supports a fishery that enhances the quality of life for folks like Big Sky, who contributed economically, professionally, and personally for years to a small community in Montana.
And then, there are those foolish road closures in places like the Gravelly Range, that helped create on of the most robust elk herds on public land in Montana. Ask
@onpoint how the elk hunting was there in the early 90's. Road closures aren't a blanket prescription, but this is one example of how it created public land opportunity for the folks in the Madison Valley and beyond. Did the road closures impact locals? I'm certain some folks lost the opportunity to use the land like the used to. I'm certain others greatly enjoy the enhanced elk hunting.
A certain Republican ex-senator in Montana petitioned for a county road closure that led to loss of public road access to thousands of acres of BLM and DNR lands. It certainly helped his personal outfitting business. In the course of "getting his", he greatly altered the public's ability to use a resource that also belonged to them.
The examples of resource misuse are endless. In no way does that mean we shouldn't develop, mine, extract, cut and mill, etc. It just means we damned well better take a look at history when we make these decisions.
Edit: Disclaimer in that none of this directly relates the quality of Bullock's presidential candidacy. And, I neither give two shits how someone does or may categorize me, nor do I find any value in doing so to others.