Opinion
Sustainability the enemy of virtue
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jim Allard:
- Tea parties missing ideological boat (April 15, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative ignores ideological objections (April 7, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative highway robbery (April 1, 2009)
- Climate change lectures suppress relevant debate (March 24, 2009)
- Cheaters graduate from college, go on to craft stimulus package (March 3, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Environmental rhetoric is everywhere.
Banning incandescent light bulbs, taking fewer trips, capping energy production and other sordid ideas have become mainstream. Relentless imperatives to reduce one’s “footprint” have caused some to seek professional help for “eco-anxiety.”
People accept these moves because they believe environmentalism stands for reducing pollution, finding better sources of energy and improving man’s life.
But behind a veneer of pseudo-science and pro-technology jargon, environmentalism’s actual goal is not man’s well-being; it’s protecting nature from man. Anything that despoils nature is condemned, irrespective of its benefits to man. Environmentalism is thus profoundly anti-development, anti-industry and anti-man.
Perhaps the most accepted and celebrated environmentalist dogma is the idea of “sustainability.”
Proponents of “sustainability” treat energy as a finite quantity of “stuff” that will eventually run out. Since oil, coal and natural gas exist in some finite quantity, being “dependent” on such resources is to invite disaster. Instead, they say, we must find energy that exists in perpetuity, that can’t be depleted, that is “renewable.”
This ignores the fact that energy does not exist in nature but has to be produced. Oil is just black goo without the science of exploration and refinery. The energy value of our resources comes about because of man’s productive effort.
But, for the advocates of “sustainability,” who see energy production as essentially an act of consuming finite resources, production becomes the problem rather than the solution.
Fossil fuel — a grand technological achievement of discovery, refinery and conversion to energy — is regarded as a crutch, while man is regarded as a helpless dependent on Mother Nature’s “pie.” It would be hard to find a greater perversion of the truth.
The transition from whale oil to natural gas to electricity was not a result of government efforts to reduce energy dependence but of entrepreneurs like Rockefeller and Edison, who used their ingenuity to produce something better.
The transition from horse to car was not a result of cap-and-trade rationing of horse-feed but of men like Henry Ford who produced something better.
Better, cleaner and more efficient technologies are the product of inventors and entrepreneurs who are left free to use their minds. Industry is what transformed smoke-filled huts to modern homes, appliances and central heating. Industry is what replaced soot-spewing factories with cleaner, more efficient ones.
Contrary to the productive inventors of the past, advocates of “sustainable” energies claim that new energy sources require government subsidies and crippling restrictions on competing energies. Their euphemistic calls to “invest in alternative energies” consist not of actually attracting investors, but of manipulating government policy to favor unproductive sources at the expense of productive sources. Environmentalists claim that “alternative” energies will somehow be a market success given enough market intervention.
The truth is just the reverse. New energy sources should be adopted because they are better, not because government decides to subsidize them. Crippling production through rationing (cap-and-trade) and moratoriums, while diverting free-market investments to unproductive energy sources, can only result in less — and inferior — energy.
When government diverts money from free-market investors to, say, biofuels, it penalizes those able to attract investors while rewarding those who cannot. It replaces technologies able to succeed on merit with those able to garner political pull.
Succeeding based on merit is what “sustainability” advocates are against. It is not failure of oil, nuclear and other energies that environmentalists are worried about; it’s their success.
This is why environmentalists consistently champion energy sources that are poor at providing energy while remaining steadfast against productive sources. Nuclear sources of energy, despite being one of the safest, cleanest and most efficient sources, continues to be opposed by environmentalists. And despite their alleged worries about running out of oil, they actively oppose the only thing that can ensure its continued availability: drilling and building new refineries.
In every era, human life has been improved by man’s ability to mold nature and create the goods and services required to sustain his life. Such values do not exist as a nature-given “pie” to be consumed; they are products of inventors, entrepreneurs and industry.
Through the false idea of “sustainability,” environmentalism attacks human prosperity at its root. Those concerned with sustaining human life should reject the dogma of “sustainability” and adopt its opposite: industry, production and freedom.
Jim Allard (jeallard@wisc.edu) is a graduate student in biological sciences.
18 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
521 W Dayton 4BR/2BA. Marble showers, dishwasher, completely updated! madisoncampusrentals.com
1, 2, or 3 bedroom apartment available for spring 2010. meltzer@wisc.edu if you are interested!
You have inadvertently made many arguments for sustainability. What you fail to recognize is that sustainability literally means improving energy technology beyond the point of oil. Like you have alluded to in your article, past technologies are but a stepping stone for the next “great thing”. Certainly you don’t think oil is an end in its self do you? As someone once said, “the stone age did not end because of a shortage of stones”. I’m willing to bet that you don’t know very much about so called “alternative” energy. Well before the adaptation of electricity for man’s needs, the whole planet and our species quite literally ran on solar energy. I don’t like that word, “alternative”, because it implies that burning coal and oil are superior methods for obtaining energy. Combustion itself is a very inefficient use of that oil (compare car engine to fuel cell). I challenge you to read up on the latest advancements in energy technology such as Passive Solar Collector Concentrators, electric drive, and sterling engines. You are right, our resources are nothing more than “goo” until the application of science.
Article of the week! Once again, it takes a grad student to show the naive freshmen how the world really works.
All we need to do to reduce the wear and tear on our environment here in the US is to curb population growth. I propose a ten year moratorium on immigration. We went from 250 million in 1990 to 300 million in 2005. That’s 50 million if 15 years! What are we, China?!
This is largely copied and pasted from a RNC email sent out last month.
Bangladesh is the place for those who REALLY wnat to conserve everything.
That was awesome!
Grade: A+
Now pack your belongings and prepare for immediate transfer to the Obamessiah’s re-education gulag (opening 2009).
idiotarian @ 2:19am boasted: “sustainability literally means improving energy technology beyond the point of oil”
No, it doesn’t. It has no “literal” meaning. “Sustainability” is globaloney-speake for wishful thinking about repealing the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Sustainability promises the vague hopes of maintaining processes or states indefinitely. Until someone makes a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion, Americans should remain skeptical of these sustainability snake oil salesmen.
In fact, sustainability is merely ill-placed faith in tax-subsidized technology push, over market pull.
“Green” is the new red. It’s still socialism; and it still sucks. And it’s causing the current energy scarcity that’s choking global free markets.
Enjoy the fantasy… because the reality is about to hit fan, kiddies.
Thanks for demonstrating why objectvisim is not taught in any philosophy department in the country, Jim.
-Kyle
” I propose a ten year moratorium on immigration.”
Who then will fill all the empty foreclosures? If anything, we need MORE immigration. We could cherry-pick the Chinese engineers and well-off British.
I found this article somewhat troubling. In my opinion, environmentalists don’t necessarily seek to have sustainable natural resource management to protect the earth from people as you say, but to protect the future of our resources from peoples’ desire to squander these resources on the here and now until they no longer exist. A good example can be seen right in Wisconsin’s Northwoods. An environmental group has recently calculated that if the US Forest Service continues their current cut rate in Wisconsin’s national forests, every loggable acre will be cut down 45 years from now. Sustainable management of natural resources should be important to us so we can continue to enjoy and use them in the future. For a reference, and to sign a petition to push for more sustainable management of the forests in the Northwoods, please see the following link:
www.elpc.org/forests
Will the sacred free-market refreeze the ice caps? I hope they do it quick… If you want the free-market to solve every problem, Icarus, keep flying. But read about every empire and its refusal to submit to ecology (psuedo-science), knowing that America is a global empire. Our collapse will be bigger than that of Rome or Maya.
Environment is planet wide and cannot be isolated along geo-political boundries. You (Anonymous #3) are correct about population growth though. As much as I hate to say it, we sort of need to dictate reproductive rights. We have gone from less than 1 billion to over 6 billion in just a century. In keeping with my own beliefs, however, the best way to go about doing this would be education on reproduction and sexuality that profoundly exceeds that which is taught in our schools today. Let me stress that a lack of education is the root of all social disease. I call for wholistic higher learning and planned parenthood. Abstinence is a stupid policy, knowledge is king.
“Will the sacred free-market refreeze the ice caps?”
Nope, the diminishing energy output of the Sun will take care of that. More ice this year than last already - at both poles.
Make sure ya got yer mittens, Bozo.
Not much in this article that makes any sense, but this seems to be the main thesis:
“Better, cleaner and more efficient technologies are the product of inventors and entrepreneurs who are left free to use their minds. Industry is what transformed smoke-filled huts to modern homes, appliances and central heating. Industry is what replaced soot-spewing factories with cleaner, more efficient ones.”
Well, sure, industry, inventors and entrepreneurs have made many contributions. But it’s the nature of human invention that while an invention might solve one problem, it creates another one, or has unexpected or externalized consequences. And it’s often the case that industry, inventors and entrepreneurs use subterfuge and raw power to obtain favorable treatment, thus distorting both the market and the research and development process.
The extremely simplified and reductionist scenario expounded by the author fits nicely into an ideology, but it certainly doesn’t doesn’t approximate anything close to real life.
There is an assumption that oil and gas and electricity derived from coal and nuclear power stations are market driven resources. That’s never been the case.
If you start with a faulty understanding of history, you end up with a faulty understanding of the possibilities of the future.
Wait, so Allard sincerely believes the process of the invention/establishment of today’s dominant energy infrastructures utilized no government subsidies? Then, well, I believe this: Contrary to people to the important American thinkers of the past, Jim Allard has never read a single word within any work on history in existence.
I too found this article disturbing, to say the least. Allard, I don’t know what environmental sources you are hearing from. The environment does not need us, we need it. You are tragically confused.
For students interested in learning more about energy, I encourage you to check out UW Energy Hub for energy resources and events in Madison. It’s a great time to get involved in energy - the industry is headed into a period of major transformation, and we need skilled, knowledgeable people to take the lead in creating our energy future.
Energy Hub is hosting an energy conference for UW students on Friday, November 7. Four panels will discuss the current state of the energy industry and the best ideas for short and long term solutions for Wisconsin. To attend this FREE event, you must pre-register online at www.uwehub.org.
For more information, visit the website.
Get the shovel: Ayn Rand is back from the dead.