Personal Interests in the Environmental Movements

While reading Miriam Silverman's Stopping the Plant, I noticed a striking similarity between the reasons behind the first conservationist movement and the debate (on both sides) regarding the SLC plant.
The preservation of the Palisades succeeded due to the vested interest of the wealthy in maintaining their gorgeous landscape purely for its aesthetic values. Dr. Edward Patridge, a resident of Cornwall, said “the Hudson river presents, throughout the fifteen or twenty miles of its course in the Highlands, its most picturesque and boldly beautiful section. Every American, from near or remote parts of these United States, is influenced to visit the great Hudson, and here his eye is pleased.” Patridge knew that the destruction of the Palisades would ruin the view from his private estate on Storm King Mountain. Others in the area, such as those who comprised the Hudson-Fulton Commision argued for legislation like the “Wainwright-Merritt bill” to protect wild forest growth entirely for its aesthetic beauty. The voices for the preservation of the Hudson showed little empathy for others in the community. Even if jobs created by logging companies and limestone excavators would clearly benefit the economy, the beauty of the scenery was all that mattered to those with the means to advocate for it.
In the more recent St. Lawrence Cement controversy, the two sides of the debate are also completely vested in their own personal interests. The inability to compromise showed that the groups sunk into dogmatism. As the SLC attempted to divide the community, a general class distinction still existed between those trying to make ends meet and those who viewed the Hudson as their “weekend getaway.” Even though most vacationers voiced their opinion to preserve the natural beauty of the river, they were adamant in their decision and entirely set on satisfying themselves rather than the community. Many probably justified their decision as the one best for the Valley, but could they really know about the poor looking for hope in a new job? Or could the poor and uneducated really understand the historical significance or uniqueness of beauty that was so necessary to protect?
Through it all, the similarity still exists. People care about themselves, their money, their home, and their family. The ideologies of the early conservationist movement and the SLC debate purely reflect these personal interests.