Environmentalists are against oil because it contributes to global warming.
Environmentalists are against coal because it contributes to global warming and acid rain.
Environmentalists are against nuclear power because of nuclear waste.
Environmentalists are against hydroelectric power because it disrupts river ecosystems.
Environmentalists are against wind power because the turbines are "unsightly."
Environmentalists should be against ethanol because it uses more fossil fuels to make the ethanol than is produced, and by turning food into fuel, that harms people worldwide -- the poorest especially. But I haven't heard too much against ethanol subsidies or its use as a fuel.
Hydrogen production still requires more energy than it produces -- but when that changes, you may rest assured that the environmentalists will find something to hate about hydrogen production.
Solar power still costs too much for too little -- but when that changes, you may rest assured that the environmentalists will find something to hate about hydrogen production.
The point for the environmentalists is not and has never been about the environment. Their new complaints about wind power prove that. All of these sources of power help to drive free markets, and it is free markets to which they are opposed. They are opposed to change -- to the passage of time itself -- as is obvious in their rhetoric about "climate change" and "unchanging nature." They are socialists who want socialism precisely because they know socialism stagnates the world. They want to banish time's passage. The constant changing and creative destruction of free markets is what they truly want to banish. They fear time's passage. Do they think that if they can stop change, that they will stop death? This is one of the legacies of atheism: the hopelessness that follows death leads such people to try to stop all change. This is also why Obama's "change" is in fact advocacy for ideas and policies which have already failed repeatedly. Or, perhaps, have not failed -- if your goal is a stagnant economy.
8 comments:
You write:
"Environmentalists should be against ethanol because it uses more fossil fuels to make the ethanol than is produced, and by turning food into fuel, that harms people worldwide -- the poorest especially. But I haven't heard too much against ethanol subsidies or its use as a fuel."
Then you clearly should broaden your reading list. Some of the most vocal criticisms of biofuels, and particularly biofuel support policies, has come from the environmental community. Just check out blogs on Gristmill, for example, or recent publications by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam, and organizations like Biofuelwatch or the Energy Justice Network.
The seminal research to identify and measure subsidies to biofuels was conducted by a program under the Canada-based environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development. You can download any of the studies from the web pages of the Global Subsidies Initiative.
In short, the environmental movement may not be unanimous in its criticism of current biofuel policies, but neither are any of the political parties. Need I remind you that one of the biggest cheerleaders for biofuels is none other than the current, Republican, President of the United States.
Thank you for the correction. All of the objections I have read to biofuels have come from pro-market people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. Still, I'm not surprised at the fact that there are environmentalist groups who are against it.
And I am well aware that Bush supported ethanol subsidies. However, I am not a Republican, and I am certainly no Bush supporter. I"m against subsidies. If you have to subsidize something, that means nobody wants it -- and nobody wants it for a reason.
I can name you many, many environmentalists who are upset with biofuel subsidies. Indeed, it has been environmental scientists that have provided the main evidence showing how poor biofuels are at reducing greenhouse gases.
It has mainly been the environmental groups that obtain their sustenance from access to members of Congress, and who think that pandering to the farm lobby will help their cause, who have been big biofuel promoters.
But thanks for being willing to reconsider. I'm a long-time skeptic of subsidies, so I'm with you on that score.
I always reconsider my position when it comes to the presentation of facts. I just hadn't heard any environmentalists complaining -- but that doesn't mean they weren't. Nor does undermine my overall thesis, anyway.
Regarding your overall thesis -- that all environmentalists are socialists -- I think that is an over-generalization. Yes, many younger environmentalists start out with the kinds of views you attribute to them. But many environmentalists, as they grow older, appreciate the power of the market and become naturally skeptical of heavy-handed and ham-handed government intervention.
That said, of course an environmentalist by nature is wary of change: particularly of irreversible change. If that were not the case, then early conservationists (same root as "conservative"), like Teddy Roosevelt, would not have set aside areas like Yosemite National Park to protect the nation's natural heritage.
I myself am a free market green. I'm not against conservation, nor free market solutions to environmental problems. I love that in states where the electric companies have been truly deregulated that there are companies advertising that they are green (some even say, "we cost more, but we're helping the environment" -- a perfectly legitimate approach, which works). It's the ecotheists and reds masquerading as greens I object to.
The majority of the socialists are very passionate about economic progress and change of the world, and they usually believe free market is not fast enough. See Marx or Soviet Union.
Soviets can be criticized for many things, but not for the lack of the passion for progress.
Hence, although some of the environmentalists are probably socialists, their environmentalist position cannot be explained as a consequence of their socialist position.
Please note that I said that environmentalists are socialists who want socialism precisely because they know socialism stagnates the world. This is not the goal of all socialists, especially historically, but this is the goal of the environmentalist-socialists. One could fault socialists 50-100 years ago with not knowing socialism isn't actually progressive and that it leads, at best, to stagnation -- but we know for a fact it does now. So anyone who is a socialist is obviously not interested in change and progress.
Post a Comment