Why would anyone object to breathing polluted air?

You may have heard of Earth Hour, in which participants try to minimize the energy the electricity they use. The right-wing response (chronicled by Roy Edroso) was Human Achievement Hour, in which they commit to turning on every light and burning as much energy as they can. Because that will accomplish—well, it will show them so there!
I’ve been meaning to post about conservative hostility to environmentalism ever since reading that the incoming House has replaced a program to use biodegradable cups instead of styrofoam in the cafeteria. Which made me think of one of Reagan’s first actions as president, removing the solar panels Jimmy Carter placed on the White House.
Practically speaking, removing solar panels already in place accomplishes nothing … unless your goal is to send an Up Yours to anyone concerned about the environment. Which Edroso’s article shows fuels a lot of right wing er, thought on this issue.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s possible to have legitimate grounds for opposing environmental efforts—protecting endangered species, regulating toxic chemicals in the air and water, and so on. If protecting the environment costs jobs, or results in massive over-regulation, those are legitimate objections (I will overlook for the moment that many of those conservatives so concerned about protecting jobs and keeping America competitive positively celebrate the right of corporations to send American jobs overseas).
But removing solar panels isn’t about either of those. Neither are some of the rants Edroso reports: People who claim that green marketing is perverting the free market (“They totally suckered the people”—in contrast to the utterly ethical marketing of nuclear and oil companies) or one blogger rejoicing that his office doesn’t recycle. Nor are right-wingers who dismiss solar power because it gets government funding but don’t bat an eye at federal aid to nuclear, oil and coal industries.
Part of it is the environmental movement’s own successes. Air and water quality is a lot better now than when I was born; in many parts of the country it’s easy to assume there’s no problem that requires government regulation any more. Sure, you read about toxic waste and leaking landfills, but everything looks fine, right?
Partly it’s that conservative/libertarian free market philosophy is absolutist: All regulation is bad. Even if it’s something we can’t really deal with as individuals (I can be an informed consumer when shopping for food, but I can’t choose the air I breathe), it should not be regulated! There’s also a strong vein of political correctness to libertarianism: Many advocates flinch from the idea that the free market might have bad effects like giving people cancer or melting the polar ice caps. The free market is magic! It only brings good things, just like Santa!
And for some (and some of the bloggers in Edroso’s article are quite clear on this) it’s just that environmentalism is a left-wing issue, born in the sixties and that makes it as offensive as they find independent women/gay rights/not invading other countries (views which are not, I should point out, universal even among conservatives). They hate it because it’s a liberal issue, and that’s all the reason they need.
And of course, for some on both left and right, the fact that corporations pull so many strings in Washington and the media explains a lot.
It’s not only the environment; Rush Limbaugh has had more than a couple of hissy fits over the existence of vegetarians and organic food in our society. Me, I think the right-wing should celebrate this—a perfect example of the free market bringing people something they want that actually makes life better—but the implied criticism that there’s anything wrong with factory farming seems to set conservatives afire (much like the guy who bitched about green marketing, as noted).
Somehow, I don’t think jobs and rational regulation have much to do with it.