Monday, 23 April 2007

When the facts change , why don't environmentalists?

Objecting to the characterisation of environmentalists the other day as "anti-human," our friend DenMT declared, "The whole argument as espoused here is so interminably bound up in woolly 'philosophical and political underpinnings' that a grasp of the real world appears to have been lost."

I must confess, I found that amusing, particularly when you consider the many mad and inhuman things said by many environmentalists, the many fatuous environmental predictions of disasters that never came to be (and more of those here), the many misunderstandings of how the world works -- of property rights, for example, or common law. Or price signals and markets. Of the potentially infinite supply of resources when you realise that the ultimate resource is the human mind.

In fact, I laughed all over again when I recalled the statement as I read this last night on Samizdata:
I still think of myself as an environmentalist. Almost everyone is interested in their living conditions. So I hope in that sense you do, too.

My problem with greenery is that I also think. Something that many greens have given up decades past. It was apparent to me even 20 years ago, that most were adapting their understanding of the problems - and indeed inventing problems - to match their prefabricated concept of a good society. I tried to fix that. I failed.

There are lots of exceptions, and I still have a lot of time for those who hang on to rationality. But unfortunately they tend to feel too much loyalty to the Green brand to distinguish themselves from it. Maybe this is good politics, but I think it is bad policy. Fostering craziness leads to the growth of craziness.
Read on for some certified gold-plated, real nut-job craziness of the type that'd be right at home in Russel Normans' lounge, about which Guy at Samizdata asks, When the Facts Change , why don't environmentalists?


  1. DenMT, what is the so called Green Design Architecture which you brought it up in your post in the other thread, saying that your clients come to your firm to request such design?

  2. Re environmentalism: It's too late. It's no longer the preserve of the Limousine Left, die-hard Luddites,and unwashed lunatics.Too many people are scared already, and they want desperately to be saved. The salesmanship on global warming has been highly effective.

    Nevertheless, if a vast majority of NZers really took environmentalism seriously, we wouldn't have so many MacDonald's wrappers and empty beer cans decorating our roadsides.

  3. FF: Energy efficient design is a catch-all for a very wide array of practices and techniques within architecture, some of which have always been part of good design, and some which are only now coming in to greater prominence.

    Energy efficient design really describes an approach more than anything specific. I won't delve in massive detail here as I don't want to derail the thread, but some of the core areas which we are being driven to specialise in more and more by three very large and valued commercial clients are low-energy materials, natural ventilation techniques, and space-economic planning.

    I have a much broader interest in sustainable design and do a lot of research into bio-remediation, adaptive reuse, and alternative energy which adds plenty of value to our everyday operation, even though we have yet to score any projects which incorporate these concepts fully.

    If you are interested in some reading, hit me up at davedrawslines @ and I'll send you some links.



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.