Friday, 26 January 2007

Saving the planet? Who do you call?

Here's an interesting point made here at CapMag that warmists and environmentalists might want to consider. Environmentalists have said for years that "we" need to create "alternative" forms of energy. But how have "they" gone about creating them?
Well, they support like-minded politicians -- who've invented nothing but obstacles to innovation. They march in protests -- that have created nothing but vandalism. And they rage against capitalism -- the only system by which worthy creations can effectively be financed, marketed and widely distributed... Clearly, a viable, cleaner form of energy (if you buy into the faulty premise that one is needed) will not be created by some snarling rock-hurler, nor some land-confiscating government official, nor some loafer who nests with squirrels.
Innovation cannot be forced, and nor can it be created by political edict. No, if alternative energies are going to emerge, they'll only do so if there's real and genuine demand for them; and if they're going to come from anywhere, they'll come from the same place that all innovations have come from -- from the brain of a creator -- and they'll be produced and distributed by the very profit-oriented capitalist system that too many environmentalists profess to despise, and even while being shackled by controls and regulations dreamed up the loafers and rock-hurlers and government officials.

Ironically, as CapMag summarises, "it's the profit-oriented, productive achiever-types that the 'save the planet' crowd most despise and desire to shackle" who are the ones the 'save the planet' crowd most need.
The men and women who possess the ingenuity, personal ambition, and business acumen that a successful new energy venture would require, environmentalists lob eggs at. Yet it's businesspeople, not "Friends of the Earth," who, by translating scientific discoveries into practical reality, actually advance human life and eliminate pollution.
Give it some thought.

If you're still not convinced by Beer O'Clock-time this afternoon, then ponder the author's concluding thought:
If the planet truly did require ecological salvation (and there's plenty of evidence indicating it doesn't), ask yourself who'd be more apt to achieve a solution: one million bureaucrats or "Earth First!" members compelled by their "love for nature"? Or one creative genius of the caliber of Bill Gates or Henry Ford driven by the profit-motive? You know the answer.
LINK: Environmentalism vs creativity - Wayne Dunn, Capitalism Magazine

RELATED: Environmentalism, Ethics, Politics


  1. In my experience 'they' usually go around demanding companies they don;t like spend oodles of cash on things the company doesn't want to because 'they' think it's a great idea.

    When people ring me demanding we have a responsibility to put money into all sorts of alternative schemes, my short rejoinder is "come back when you;ve put your own money into them, in fact here's some such companies looking for money. When you are willing to put your money where your mouht is and risk your own savings and sjow it is viable, then I might be willing to take your 'demands' seriously. Until then, foxtrot oscar."

    I;ve never had one call from someone who has actually done so, but I take great green glowing pride in knowing that I have singlehandedly reduced warming emissions from a number of sources.


  2. An early plug for Beer O'Clock. Unheard of!

    Good to see we are getting the coverage we deserve.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.