A good description of the eco-fascist cult's rhetoric and the nonsense regarding the nirvana of 'alternative energy', is from the merry Marxist economist Keynes: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler a few years back." [Voices in the air would be polls with scientific questions such as: 'do you want your children to die from toxic fumes and lack of oxygen or do you want government to stop climate change?'] Being an academic scribbler of illogical interventionist drivel, even Keynes would recognize the gibberish around the eco-cult for what it is - political opportunism and corruption. Alternative energy is a fantasy in an age gone mad with earth-goddess cultism. All must bend on knee towards Gaia and chant in unison...... [the world is terrible, we will all die...the world is terrible, we will all die....]
The Romans and Greeks built illustrious temples to various Gods not only as places of awe-inspiring worship but also to collect money from tourists and pilgrims. The cult was necessary to keep the illiterate peasants awed, taxes high, and money in the government's coffers. In our times the Vatican and Mecca are exemplars of such a policy but they are dwarfed by the massive industry and copious subsidization which exists around the earth-cult.
Cult members which benefit from eco-cult scare tactics include inter-alia: government ministries; regulators; firms in regulated markets that want hand-outs and to limit competition; ethanol producers who are mostly huge agri-businesses in politically sensitive areas; solar and wind power developers; climate change activists who live off government hand-outs; and the myriad numbers of lobby groups which make a living arm-twisting politicians with fake polls.
Poll question: Do you believe that a green planet is good for your children's, children's future? [answer meekly, yes]. Next question: If it is than don't you support government action on alternative fuel technology or are you a fascist-capitalist-racist-baby eating immoral polluter? [answer meekly and apologetically of course I support government action].
It is depressing that the sewer of environmental activism has not had some light shed on it by the media.
Why is Oil king?
King oil reigns because it is cheaper; more energy efficient [yes it is]; and simpler to distribute to real people in the real world, then the fantasy technologies of 'alternative energy'. There is lots of oil left in the world - about 300 years at current levels of consumption - but newer oil resources must run the gamut of eco-fascist activism, hostility and over-regulation, not to mention constraints on distribution and refining capacity. Only about 15 % of US oil supply for example comes from the Middle East. There is enough oil reserves that are not yet drilled sitting within the Continental US to eliminate Persian gulf oil imports. But oil firms can't drill and refine these reserves thanks to the eco-fascists that dominate politics.
What about all the chatter that alternative energy is cheaper and cleaner? Only nuclear power and cleaning burning coal provide clean burning alternatives to oil, but the media and the chattering elite focus of course on 'alternative' sources meaning everything but nuclear power, coal and reality. So what about these pristine and wonderful 'other sources'?
It is hogwash. Lots of studies now exist which seriously question the benefits of: ethanol cars; wind turbines; and fuel-cell batteries. Not only are these 'alternative' sources of energy expensive to produce they also destroy the environment - something apparently the earth-goddess cult is deeply concerned about [tears rolling down cheeks].
Take ethanol. Serious academics are starting to question whether the environmental benefits of ethanol are all they are cracked up to be. A recent academic study from Cornell University calculates that ethanol uses up 70 per cent more energy in its production than the energy that is left in it. Not a smart return on energy investment one could say. Great swathes of farmland would need to be used to convert enough plant biomass including corn, or soya into ethanol. Doesn't the earth cult whine about farmland and 'green spaces'?
Waste production from making ethanol is immense and would need to be treated, stored or reused somehow. All of this would power up the pricing of ethanol fuel. The average American car, for one year, would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. The price per liter or gallon would be double or triple what you now pay. Your car's speed and distance traveled would be halved. Are you willing to pay a higher price for worse performance? If yes congratulations, you are a certified die-hard member of the eco-cult team. Personally I have no interest in higher prices for worse performance.
Look at wind turbines. A good example of wind-turbine nonsense is what British-Dutch developer Infinergy/LZN plans to build in the UK - 22 wind turbines, up to 410 feet high with wonderful promises of energy output, saving the world and the usual litany of eco-nonsense. Yet experts commissioned by locals who are against the project believe that the developer's environmental plans exaggerate the carbon-saving benefits by up to 150 per cent; fail to provide critical wind-speed data [turbines lie idle most of the time]; contain misleading figures on electricity output; and lie about the number of birds killed by the turbines in any given year.
None of their concerns have or were refuted by either the government [which pays for the project] or LZN. This wind project is typical of the eco-nonsense one can see across the world. Heavily subsidized, not that eco-friendly, not that beneficial, not that logical, but hey we must do it! This is what the eco-club wants - no debate, no questionings, and no real science. Just march in lock step and raise your arms in the eco-cult salute, look to the eco-fuehrer for salvation and just obey.
The main beneficiaries of the eco-scam regarding alternative fuels are big-business; politicians and the political groups that gain power. In the US the special lobby interests that push for eco-nonsense are extremely well funded and powerful. One group, the Apollo Alliance, has pressured both US parties to spend up to $300 billion in recent years on subsidizing farmers [ie. ethanol production] most of which is given to huge agri-businesses who in turn kick back huge sums into political campaigns. If you are a US politician you can't annoy the Agro-lobby.
It is not a spiritual conversion that forced British Petroleum to become Beyond Petroleum and waste billions in share-holder wealth buying off green activists with dumb investments in ethanol and other alternative fuels. It was conversion to buy peace; appear 'green'; and re-brand themselves as likeable, lovable tree hugging types, whose business is only run for the benefit of the wonderful children they show on their TV adverts. BP like many other firms of course demands government subsidies to pay for their investments in ridiculous schemes of fantasy. In other words big business wants the little consumer and taxpayer to pay the costs of their alternative fuel fantasy. How tear-jerking.
As with most social dislocations the problem is with government. Governments lie, distort and conform to behind the scenes political pressure. Scare tactics, death cults, subsidies, pay-offs, kick-backs, trade-offs, all masked by dire doom and gloom scenarios emanate from the government and their various political-business allies who salivate at the idea of money, more power, and reduced competition.
Let's repeat a fact: only 15% of US oil comes from the Persian Gulf. The US could stop sending money overseas within 5 years if the Americans decided to get serious about the problem. But in place of hard reality big spending Bush and friends along with Democrats in the pockets of special interest groups prefer rhetoric, handing out cash, and creating fear through eco-doom and gloom. If the US wants to stop sending money to Islamic fascist and terror regimes they could. But the Arab and eco-lobbies will not allow it.
At some point in the future maybe some fuels will replace oil. But if it happens it should happen in transparent, open and non-subsidized markets. We don't need government's beholden to special interest groups, interested in poll numbers and intent on buying votes, to decide what is a good alternative to oil. The market will decide that. Allowing politicians and their lobby friends to set the agenda is the sure path to fiscal ruin and inefficient energy usage. Show me one government run and subsidized market that works [pause...waiting...waiting...]. I thought so. So then why do you support the eco-nonsense around 'alternative energy'?
-Alan Reynolds with the Cato Institute.
-Sheldon Richman senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of 'Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State', and editor of The Freeman magazine.
