Just like with the birds, your attitude drives people away from voting Republican (which is at least marginally more conservative than the Democrat party). Your approach will have purple states turn blue instead of red. A lot of people don't fall 100% at one end of the political spectrum. They don't like big government, but anarchy isn't too appealing either. If they're forced to have to choose between "To Hell with progress" and "to Hell with nature" many will choose protecting "nature", however they define that in their minds.
The best plan is not to boldly say that you don't give a crap about the effects on nature, but to inform people that the solutions won't harm nature... as is the case with drilling in Alaska. Don't force people into thinking its an all-or-nothing choice. Saying "Who cares about the birds?" or "I don't give a crap about the caribou" sends the message that following your choices will get rid of the birds and caribou. You're inadvertently helping the liberals out by implying the same thing the liberals do.... If people vote conservative, they'll destroy nature.
Since I was typing to a conservative, I shortened it up a bit. The baloney about thinning eggshells due to DDT was bunk too, and has been proven as such. It was yet another enviro push by the left, and it worked because it was framed in such a way as to have animal lovers believe it was an all or nothing deal. Eagles came back and are thriving because of captive breed/release programs, and a ban on hunting, not because of the ban on DDT.
Again, because I was posting to a conservative, I declined to flesh out my positions. I assumed you knew the facts behind both. I apologize.