The hypocrisy in this piece is unreal… You invoke Theodore Roosevelt in the same week that Mike Lee is attempting to permanently rescind the Roadless Rule. This is the same senator whose public land sell-off was beaten back last summer by hunters and anglers. Not one word about that here.
Also, not one word about increasing the amount of public lands. Roosevelt's legacy wasn't trails or infrastructure. It was about reserving wild land for the public to enjoy. This article claims his vision while staying silent as conservatives actively dismantle that same vision. You’re not reclaiming anything.
As someone who is personally not conservative but deeply supports the lofty goals of organizations like ACC and Nature is Nonpartisan to restore the shared consensus on environmental protection that defined the latter half of the 20th Century in American politics, I am begging you all to stop relying on large language models in drafting these kinds of public advocacy materials.
This is at least the fourth article from ACC that I have read–many others coming from the organization's CEO–that is littered with common AI syntax like "it's not X, it's Y," ending a sentence with a clause beginning with an em dash or a colon, and the prose's overall short, punchy tone. This style isn't just monotonous and repetitive. It legitimately undermines the effectiveness of the message you are trying to convey (as this example hopefully demonstrates). This article is particularly egregious, and while not definitive proof of AI usage, multiple AI detectors marked the *entire* article as likely AI-generated.
How can The Bully Pulpit advertise itself as "a place for thought leaders in the conservative environmental space" when there is literally no human thought put into these pieces? For the sake of the environmental movement, which has historically and should continue to welcome conservatives into the fold, I urge ACC and its members to care enough about the environment to write about it in their own words.
Amen. I feel like a crazy person sometimes when I talk about conservation among conservatives. How, I wonder, did the "religious right" completely drop the ball on the stewardship of God's green earth? This is an excellent platform.
Your piece in the Bully Pulpit this morning stopped me mid-read. Specifically this:
"Abandoned industrial sites should be seen not as liabilities, but as opportunities. By expanding support for cleanup and repurposing... we can transform neglected and often polluted land into new businesses, parks, trails, and productive community spaces."
I've been following the work of the American Conservation Coalition, particularly your effort to reclaim conservation as the conservative tradition it has always been — rooted in stewardship, belief in the free market, and reliant on private capital rather than federal mandate. Congratulations on a job well done.
I want to introduce you to EcoMax Holdings, LLC, because it is the real-world example of a company that lives by that philosophy.
EcoMax has built the first sustainable, free-market process for repurposing brownfields and other underutilized sites. They patented the underwriting model and invented the solution for what decades of well-intentioned legislation and over 50 years of federal cleanup funding could not resolve at scale: a financially viable private capital path to transforming legacy pollution into productive community assets.
My intent is simply to put EcoMax on your radar as a case where conservative conservation is already being practiced — through the free market, without waiting for Washington.
If you are interested, I would be glad to make the introduction. Better yet, in the words of EcoMax CEO Cheryl Hoffman: "We didn't build a product. We corrected a market failure."
The hypocrisy in this piece is unreal… You invoke Theodore Roosevelt in the same week that Mike Lee is attempting to permanently rescind the Roadless Rule. This is the same senator whose public land sell-off was beaten back last summer by hunters and anglers. Not one word about that here.
Also, not one word about increasing the amount of public lands. Roosevelt's legacy wasn't trails or infrastructure. It was about reserving wild land for the public to enjoy. This article claims his vision while staying silent as conservatives actively dismantle that same vision. You’re not reclaiming anything.
As someone who is personally not conservative but deeply supports the lofty goals of organizations like ACC and Nature is Nonpartisan to restore the shared consensus on environmental protection that defined the latter half of the 20th Century in American politics, I am begging you all to stop relying on large language models in drafting these kinds of public advocacy materials.
This is at least the fourth article from ACC that I have read–many others coming from the organization's CEO–that is littered with common AI syntax like "it's not X, it's Y," ending a sentence with a clause beginning with an em dash or a colon, and the prose's overall short, punchy tone. This style isn't just monotonous and repetitive. It legitimately undermines the effectiveness of the message you are trying to convey (as this example hopefully demonstrates). This article is particularly egregious, and while not definitive proof of AI usage, multiple AI detectors marked the *entire* article as likely AI-generated.
How can The Bully Pulpit advertise itself as "a place for thought leaders in the conservative environmental space" when there is literally no human thought put into these pieces? For the sake of the environmental movement, which has historically and should continue to welcome conservatives into the fold, I urge ACC and its members to care enough about the environment to write about it in their own words.
Amen. I feel like a crazy person sometimes when I talk about conservation among conservatives. How, I wonder, did the "religious right" completely drop the ball on the stewardship of God's green earth? This is an excellent platform.
Your piece in the Bully Pulpit this morning stopped me mid-read. Specifically this:
"Abandoned industrial sites should be seen not as liabilities, but as opportunities. By expanding support for cleanup and repurposing... we can transform neglected and often polluted land into new businesses, parks, trails, and productive community spaces."
I've been following the work of the American Conservation Coalition, particularly your effort to reclaim conservation as the conservative tradition it has always been — rooted in stewardship, belief in the free market, and reliant on private capital rather than federal mandate. Congratulations on a job well done.
I want to introduce you to EcoMax Holdings, LLC, because it is the real-world example of a company that lives by that philosophy.
EcoMax has built the first sustainable, free-market process for repurposing brownfields and other underutilized sites. They patented the underwriting model and invented the solution for what decades of well-intentioned legislation and over 50 years of federal cleanup funding could not resolve at scale: a financially viable private capital path to transforming legacy pollution into productive community assets.
My intent is simply to put EcoMax on your radar as a case where conservative conservation is already being practiced — through the free market, without waiting for Washington.
If you are interested, I would be glad to make the introduction. Better yet, in the words of EcoMax CEO Cheryl Hoffman: "We didn't build a product. We corrected a market failure."
I am sure you will enjoy meeting her.
Bob Raleigh