I consider myself an environmentalist, and I am mystified as to why the most vocal and visible of environmentalists are generally considered to be liberal and progressive. Many are even labeled "environmental wackos" and dismissed into the most liberal corner of the liberal camp.

The more I read about such environmental activists, the more convinced I become that they should be considered "conservative."

According to the thesaurus, "conservative" means "traditional" or "moderate." "Traditional" is synonymous with "conventional," "conformist," "unadventurous" and "old-fashioned."

"Moderate" has the synonyms "careful" and "cautious." "Liberal," on the other hand, means "open-minded" and has the synonyms "free-thinking" and "tolerant."

Most environmental activists who proclaim the title conform as if from the same cookie-cutter. They're unadventurous in the use of technology to solve problems and old-fashioned in their desire for an imagined, simpler lifestyle of long ago.

Tolerant they are not, and they are pessimistic about the problem-solving ability of modern humans.

These activists' vision of the future is much more like hindsight: Burn less fuel, use less water, drive small cars, live downtown, build small houses, promote small farms, and the list goes on.

If the political framers of our government had been as conservative as modern environmental activists we would still be a British colony, perhaps even a monarchy.

Clearly, many people claim environmental allegiance for impure purposes; sometimes even commercial purposes.

Environmentally friendly ads sell products almost unrelated to the environment. That international giant, McDonald's, whose founder Ray Kroc was selected by Life Magazine as one of the most important people of the 20th century, advertised in Life in 1990 that "McDonald's does not, has not and will not permit the destruction of tropical rainforests for our beef supply."

The connection between rain forests and beef supply may be vague, but the purpose of the ad is not.

Kroc was said to be an avid opponent of littering, but this bit of environmental advertising was as calculated to sell hamburgers as enviro-political ads are to buy votes.

The ad appeared some time between McDonald's selling of its billionth hamburger and its indictment as America's foremost carrier in the obesity epidemic.

And McDonald's contribution to environmental degradation and obesity are probably about equal: that is to say, about zero.

Such labels as "environmentalist" or "conservationist," in different times or cultures, are bound to be imprecise and chancy.

Today, for example, there are no self-proclaimed anti-environment politicians, even though many struggle for a balance between environmental and commercial progress. Today's environmental hero may well become tomorrow's villain.

Even Theodore Roosevelt, considered by many a founder of modern wildlife conservation, was in conflict with some of its aspects. He lamented the wholesale slaughter of buffalo, then he concluded it was necessary.

"Where the buffalo were plenty, they ate up all the grass that could have supported cattle," Roosevelt noted. "From the standpoint of humanity at large, the extermination of the buffalo has been a blessing."

Reasonable people have always found conflict between human progress and fouling of the environment.

As far back as the Middle Ages, efforts were made to reduce coal use in London and keep brick kilns and other polluting industries away from the city. Even then, the resource that fueled the Industrial Revolution was causing city dwellers to have second thoughts.

How history would have been changed if a Kyoto treaty had been signed back then!

But don't romanticize the "good old days." Don't buy the lie that tomorrow will be worse than today. Don't blame the industry and technology that give us the highest standard of living the planet has known for today's human weakness or future disasters foreseen by self-ordained disaster masters.

Like the old-time preachers with constricted visions of hell and damnation, the modern-day preachers of environmental Armageddon are not liberal or generous in their assessment of either the planet or its inhabitants. They see no possibilities except disaster. They fail to see human ingenuity and commitment.

They condemn us to purgatory tomorrow and hell the next day if we don't walk the straight and narrow that they defined and expect us to accept. Don't believe it. A liberal view of the future of the planet is imperative.

"Jurassic Park" author Michael Crichton said about the environmental movement, "We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs."

Progress should accommodate technological advancement and economic development for better living without causing environmental degradation.

In contrast to what the conservative pessimist-activist would have us believe, such accommodation is possible, is occurring and will continue to take place.

The truly liberal environmentalists must proclaim the inventiveness of our technical and societal organizations, advertise our progress and state publicly that we have the capacity, the will and enthusiasm for clean progress.