One of the things that makes ecological protection so hellishly difficult is that the "environmentally minded" side of the argument pitches all of its propaganda assuming that the recipients of the propaganda are already in line with many other values.

As an example, the two major save-the-environment angles in the US are the 'hippie' ("We need to save the forests and the Earth because all of the species need to live in harmony") and the 'scientist' ("We need to save the environment because we are all going to die from ecosystem collapse and catastrophic flooding"). Both of these personas are astonishingly easy to caricature and it's effortless for right-wing political leaders to find the silliest and most ridiculous examples to paint as representative of the movement.

If you want to get 'conservatives' to agree to do something about conservation, you need to appeal to the 'religious' ("Did God give us these gifts so we could destroy them in our own name?") and the 'nationalist' ("For centuries these proud forests have stood as a symbol and vital backbone of our nation's economy and spirit, and only powerful and clever stewardship will allow us to both profit from our natural resources as well as hand them down in full strength to our grandchildren so they can continue to steer the nation to prosperity").