TCS Daily


A Bold New Breed of Environmentalism

By Andrew Marszal - June 12, 2009 12:00 AM

If Adam Werbach, 36, former environmentalist prodigy and lapsed vegetarian, doesn't seem like your typical green activist, it's because he's adamantly not one. Dressed in the simple, casual corporate attire popularised by Silicon Valley's finest, the Californian candidly informs me that environmentalists make for terrible dinner conversation.

He is in the employ of several of America's most nefarious executives, and declares with a detached shrug that it would be "a good thing" if the current green bubble burst. He lambasts the Federal Government for failing to save the US auto industry whilst revelling in its "death spasms" - they are "exciting", apparently.

Only the odd university campus throwback expression about "the strange microcosm of George Bush America" prevents me from thinking I've stumbled into an interview with a Wall Street banker rather than the bright young thing elected to presidency of the Sierra Club, America's oldest and most venerable environmental organisation, at the alarmingly tender age of 23.

It is paradoxes such as these which explain how, when Werbach sits down to write a latest offering on sustainability issues that is not a green bible but rather a corporate business manifesto, his converted fellow "post-environmentalists" have long since ceased to be surprised.

Strategy for Sustainability [1], Werbach's new book, concerns itself with organising the great uninitiated. It doesn't stop with corporate executives, but rather represents one facet of the ambitious strategy of Saatchi & Saatchi's sustainability-oriented "S" brand, of which he is global president, to create a billion-person movement.

Just as his apathy towards the very notion of a left/right political spectrum leads him to dismiss (albeit nostalgically) any environmentalist movement not apolitical in its composition, Werbach sees no need to choose between grassroots and top-down proselytising.

In practical terms, with nearly one-third of all Americans entering Wal-Mart's doors every week while he briefs the men and women managing the shelves, the boundaries rapidly blur.

"Wal-Mart's a lot less controversial than it used to be" he declares, in softly-spoken rebuke to those former colleagues who accused him of selling out when he signed up his consultancy's biggest client in 2006. It has managed to dramatically introduce sustainability right at its business core in mid-course, he tells me, and on a scale so large that it ended up "writing standards that the government should have been writing".

And after all, why not employ its considerable resources for the planet's good? Werbach's research has uncovered that reuniting corporations with their most inherent raison d'être - to make money - tends to lead them in this direction anyhow.

Ironically, in his 1997 book Act Now, Apologise Later [2], Werbach referred to Warren Buffet's corporation, the world's largest publicly-listed company, as a "new breed of toxin."

But he has long since eschewed such conventional thinking, following instead the divergent path signalled by his 2004 "Is Environmentalism Dead?" speech to the California's Commonwealth Club.

The broad idea is that environmentalism has traditionally been more concerned with ideology than outcome, and thus has unduly elevated certain companies, products or outcomes only good in a single, narrow element. Contrarily it has tended to denigrate certain parties via a similarly blinkered logic.

Sustainability consultants are often accused of trying to have their cake and eat it in pursuit of an unrealistic panacea. That such paeans to moral and prudent profitability should appeal during our financially-straitened times is hardly surprising; how much happier to view General Motors' ignominious bankruptcy as an opportunity for proactive sustainable development than as the long overdue coup de grace for an industry brought to its knees by financially unviable times.

The assumption that mandatory efficiency standards such as the Obama administration's newly instated 35.5 miles to the gallon for all new cars by 2016 are not punitive coffin nails delivered by new bully owners, but the very salvation of the US$1.5 billion sector, entices far beyond environmentalist circles.

As do all good consultants', Werbach's calculations proudly exude a strong sense of pragmatism, made perhaps more ostensible through his attacks on green idealism. Impassioned bloggers' declarations that Wal-Mart is inherently "awful" and "needs to have its corporate charter revoked and then be shut down" on San Francisco Bay Guardian's website involuntarily cast Werbach's assertion, that small improvements in such places go a long way, as such.

Inevitably the reality is rather more muddled, as revealed by a closer inspection of economic principles which seem neoclassical in their confidence in the free market to ultimately demand sustainable strategy, yet positively Keynesian in their belief that regulatory action (though self-imposed) can and should aim to render companies "bubble-proof".

On the matter of the global recession, "the good thing about the credit crisis is that it forces re-evaluation of strategy", but simultaneously "companies have pulled back on those innovation investments in a capital-constrained world".

Inevitably the question remains: might not halting investment in such abominable polluters as the oil industry be the solution to environmental woes after all? It is possible to perceive in Werbach's demeanour a steady willingness for compromise that has surely shaken off the trappings of youthful anti-establishment indulgence. But it would also be disservice to mistake this recalculation for ambivalence:

Do companies which aren't based on sustainable business models, I ask, have a role to play? "Yeah - they have to die!", and there's a twinkle in the veteran activist's eye here. Not only that, but "Their role is to become carcasses that will feed the rest".

Werbach has always seemed slightly embarrassed by journalists' wilful efforts to paint him as the maverick of environmentalism, as emphasised by the self-effacing shrug I meet when I try to address his alleged air of controversy.

And to his credit, he does try to push his principles further than most. "I was with Novo Nordisk yesterday, the largest maker of diabetes medicine", he explains. "And we were talking about how to tie climate change to diabetes prevention... What we have seen is that when people are pre-diabetic and are exposed to information about global warming, they're better at beginning behaviours that will slow the chances of them getting diabetes."

So it seems it will not just be our bank accounts and the ozone layer which benefit from that trip to the recycling depot, but our bodily well-being itself. Such expansive logic, to which Werbach's strategy seems prone, is surely boosted by the short-term volatility embodied by the credit crisis:

"With the complete failure of the industry, it's a pretty good time to be born actually."


Andrew Marszal is a literary journalist with Corriere della Sera newspaper, and is a graduate of the University of Cambridge.


[1] Harvard Business Press 2009
[2]HarperCollins 1997
Categories:

73 Comments

"more concerned with ideology than outcome"
Is that not the main concern of any 'advocacy' group and bureaucracy?
Keep hyping the issue to secure more power, but undermine all efforts so resolve the issue. Education, race, 'climate change', poverty, etc. are all ideologies with documented solutions that don't meet the politicians main criterion of staying in power.

Effective communication
Wehrbach is an example of someone moving the dialog forward. He carefully listens to both sides, and then builds trial solutions acceptable to both. He's the anti-polarizer.

As such he's likely to be flamed by zealots from either side. But he does one very good thing: he broadens the middle ground. Extremists and ideologues can never change, so they will never be agents of change. Wehrbach, a pragmatist, will always be near the center of the things that actually do change.

Here's a good article, in Fast Company, about his encounters with WalMart:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/working-with-the-enemy.html

He's a good advertisement for the approach of hiring boy wonders to run things, instead of old fossils. So far he's got my vote.

Working with the 'enemy'.
Verrry middle ground, pragmatic and diplomatic calling Wal Mart the enemy.

You seem to believe having principles and standards is a bad thing. How far are you willing to compromise?
You support confiscation by the government of other people's property. When does it become intolerable? When they take yours?

It's like the comment of the German Lutheran minister who refused to defend the rights of minorities from the *****.

That's really off the subject
"Verrry middle ground, pragmatic and diplomatic calling Wal Mart the enemy."

Did I call WalMart the enemy? Did I even use the word? No? Then why the quotes?

"You seem to believe having principles and standards is a bad thing. How far are you willing to compromise?"

You seem unable to even follow a simple argument. Boy Wonder Wehrbach exemplifies a marvelous principle, and one worth following. It is that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

His tactic is precisely TO compromise. That, in a single word, sums up his entire approach.

"You support confiscation by the government of other people's property."

This seems a bit of topic. Point out to me, in my comment above, where I have advocated that the government take someone's property. Whose property? And why?

Please try to restrict your answer to those things I've actually said in my comment. Points will be added if you don't use quotation marks around words I never said.

You have condemned Wal Mart in the past.
It seems to me Werbach has followed the path of Lomborg and understood that the political ideology of environmental movements prevents a solution because they don't want a solution, perpetuating their power.

Have you advocated for market based solutions such as building more nuclear power plants to solve your perceived global warming issue or do you favor more government taxes and punishments (confiscation of property).

I don't see compromise, I see a rational approach to solve a problem. The reaction by his former 'friends' tells it all.

It seems Wal Mart converted Werbach.
"But for Werbach, the big surprise is how much he's learned from Wal-Mart. He riffs on the company's obsession with its core mission, its relentless tracking of results, its "correction of error" meetings. "In failure," he says, "you don't hide your head in shame, you actually get on the phone the next day and you talk about what went wrong." In Wal-Mart's culture, he has found what he thought was missing from the environmental establishment."
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/working-with-the-enemy.html?page=0%2C4

He was converted because Wal Mart is the epitome of a free market company today by obsessing about providing the best products at the best price by cutting waste anywhere they can and getting the job done everyday.

Do you support such tactics now Roy?

Roy is too funny
"This seems a bit of topic. Point out to me, in my comment above, where I have advocated that the government take someone's property. Whose property? And why?"

I'm still laughing over that one. Life sure is grand on Planet Roy.

Off topic; may be not. Now gumments want to rage entire cities to "return the land to nature"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html

This one is REALLY off-topic; paging Roy, paging Roy, paging Roy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_national_service_inspector_general

Not a new idea.
20-30 years ago some Ivy League professor thought it a good idea to return the Great Plains to the bison.

Anarchists at both extremes...
It is not in the interest of extremists in either camp that an actual solution to the problem should be achieved. It puts them out of business. They are professional bitchers so it is very inconvenient when their issues are resolved.

This is why global warming is so delicious. It is happening anyway...faster than can be explained by any models blaming it on us...and we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon either. Perfect! Job security into perpetuity.

I have. So?
Yes, I have criticised WalMart for certain behaviors. And Werbach has employed a fresh approach that gets WalMart to agree on a consensual basis to modify those behaviors. Thus I both praise and encourage him in his efforts. Does that seem inconsistent to you?

Others have just hurled insults at WalMart.. and have accomplished nothing. Should I follow some rule that says I should stick with them, even when their efforts are ineffectual?

2. You say that Werbach has "followed the path of Lomborg". I don't see that immediately. Maybe you could flesh out that thought so the reasoning is visible.

I have, and recently, offered encouragement for Lomborg's approach to prioritising mankind's greatest concerns by magnitude and by cost of repair. This is an eminently sound way to proceed. However it is not the same as a blanket endorsement of every word he has ever uttered. Too subtle for you? Ask me to go over it again.

Most intriguing is this, though. You say that "the political ideology of environmental movements prevents a solution because they don't want a solution, perpetuating their power."

It's always hard to impute a motive when you don't have direct evidence. Do you have direct evidence of that?

I think you may be excessively hung up on the attitudes felt by overly zealous members of the environmental movement, when they accuse Werbach of selling out. This may very well be a valid criticism of those individuals. But it is hardly an indictment of environmental concerns.

This last is an important issue. I'd like to know whether you think any concern over the environment is bunk because there exist people within the movement who might disagree with Werbach's approach.

As usual, please respond. And please address these concerns specifically, rather than just barging on to your next rant. I'd like to see us hash them out together.

That's what we mean by "compromise"
It is in the spirit of compromise that one partner to the dialog gives up something in order to urge the other to do the same. That's the kind of bipartisan spirit that allows us to evolve. It gets us further along the road.

It's easy to make enemies that way, as I've alluded, among the zealots in one's own camp.

We could only hope that the Republicans, in time, are able to evolve from being the party of NO toward helping the country arise again from the pit it has been cast into.

If they decide not to do so, they will lose the elctorate to an even greater degree. But that's hardly the point. By not joining into the process of repair in a sincere spirit of aid to the public that has elected them, they would show themselves as being unpatriotic in the most egregious sense. They would be putting their own goals above those of the nation.

Then there is this: "He was converted because Wal Mart is the epitome of a free market company today by obsessing about providing the best products at the best price by cutting waste anywhere they can and getting the job done everyday."

That view is not supported by anything I recall from the actual text of the Fast Company profile on him. How about showing us evidence that Werbach was "converted".. and that that was "because" he suddenly saw that WalMart was a pure exercise of rapacious marketing?

And "cutting waste" doesn't refer to anything environmental. That's when you streamline your operation to make a greater profit. Werbach's concerns are with the other kind of waste.

Keeping one's own waste products from entering the environment occupied by others costs money. What saves money is just dumping the stuff on the side of the road one night. It would seem to me that if Werbach has gotten WalMart to take its duty to the rest of the country seriously, not to dump its waste on them, then he deserves a great big hand. He's convinced them it's occasionally good policy to spend money on wise projects.. and thereby earn the goodwill of the community it depends on.

Evidence
The first choice of the socialist environuts is to get their way with government force (taxes like cap and trade). In addition, they refuse to support the one technology that can provide unlimited energy, nuclear power.
The free market technology revolution is what has created the cleanest environments in the world yet they prefer socialism which has produced the some of the greatest environmental disasters in modern times.

Wal Mart has not changed.
It is providing a product and service to its customers at the best price by maximizing efficiency and cutting costs.
That is how you 'control' a company, with the free market, not government regulations.

Good find
Punishing whistleblowers is a very big no-no. Assuming there is no second side to this story, give Obama one big fat "black mark".

Global warming? Not for the past 10 years.
BTW, the sun at the lowest activity since 1928 and it recently snowed in ND.

What anarchy? The environuts DEMAND a big government to take control and save the planet.

Urban renewal programs
You exaggerate when you say Obama "wants to rage entire cities". The article refers to an ordinary urban renewal program.. something we know something about from the times it has been employed before.

Here's what the article actually says: "The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing [note: not "raging"] entire districts and returning the land to nature.

"Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area."

When you have an intractable area of urban blight, that costs more in social problems and brings in less revenue than other parts of the city.. and that has proven to be hard to patrol from a safety standard, and is not a contributing part of the city.. THEN that area may be a good candidate for razing and renewal.

For it to follow the dictates of simple justice, the stakeholders must be compensated. That is, property owners repaid at the assessed valuation and inhabitants relocated at the city's expense to newer, more satisfactory quarters. To my thinking this is essential, that the city guarantee fairness in its treatment of the displaced.

Often that doesn't happen. For instance in New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, many people went ahead and started renovating their flooded homes after Katrina, without asking for the city's help. Then it was announced that the neighborhood was being shut down, and no services or permits would be issued there.

With no compensation, that's very wrong.

An early program with mixed results was the razing of Southwest Washington, back in the 1960s. Yes, the place was a terrible slum, and it had no good future anyone could see then. So they moved the people and tore down the decrepit old frame houses.. and then put up a brand new mid-rise city, with shopping malls and parks between the housing blocs. It all looked like a drawing from Corbusier.

Which is okay, I suppose. Meanwhile neighboring Capitol Hill went the way of encouraging pioneering families to buy up cheap old run down homes and fix them up again. This resulted in a neighborhood with both spirit and character.. something Southwest never regained.

It's all in how good your plan is. But the principle of urban renewal is certainly a valid approach to improving the lives of the city's occupants.

Doing good by doing well
You're hampered by your ideological blinders. WalMart has certainly changed certain of its ways:

"Wal-Mart's a lot less controversial than it used to be" he declares, in softly-spoken rebuke to those former colleagues who accused him of selling out when he signed up his consultancy's biggest client in 2006. It has managed to dramatically introduce sustainability right at its business core in mid-course, he tells me, and on a scale so large that it ended up "writing standards that the government should have been writing".

That's right there in the article. No one is saying the WM has changed its mission to maximise profit for itself. What is being asserted is that Werbach has found ways to show them how they can increase their profit margin by employing economies that reduce waste.

It's one way to promote change. But government regulations, however you abhor them, also gets the job done.

Finally, let me again register my annoyance at your ignorant persistence. You have put quotes around the word "control", intimating that I've used it in some sense. I have not.

Show me where I've used the word. Werbach at no point "controls" WalMart. Nor have I said he does.

In other words, don't do that. Ever.

Govt regulations: Using a sledge hammer on a thumb tack
Govt regs get the job done with many more 'unintended consequences'.

It is you that advocates government control of the economy.

'Control' is in quotes to suggest that the free market does a much better job of 'controlling' the economy than a brute force government.

Free market environmentalism
"No single tool will solve all environmental problems. But one powerful tool--the market--has been neglected by environmentalists in recent years. The Thoreau Institute is a free-market environmental group not because it believes that markets are a panacea for all problems--they aren't--but because Institute research has found that markets will solve many environmental problems better than more government regulation."

"Aren't conservatives people who just want to keep things the way they are?

That claim, often made by liberals, hardly describes conservatives. In today's parlance, conservatives are people who believe in solving problems at a local, decentralized, or individual scale. In contrast, liberals today try to solve problems using the power of the federal government.

This definition has changed over the decades. In the nineteenth century, liberals wanted to liberate people from government control. They advocated free markets as the best expression of individual desires. They also supported free trade, freedom of expression and religion, and freedom of inquiry. Today, people who hold these views sometimes call themselves classical liberals to distinguish themselves from modern liberals. The Thoreau Institute is a classical liberal environmental group."

"Name some free-market or classical liberal environmentalists.

Henry David Thoreau, often celebrated as America's first environmentalist, was a classical liberal. He supported free markets (which he called commerce) and opposed government regulation. He resisted taxes when those taxes went for activities that he considered immoral. He opposed slavery and advocated a government that recognize[s] the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."

http://www.ti.org/faqs.html#1

Return Detroit 'burbs to farmland.
You should like that Roy as you claim the world is running out of food.

"catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."
That is the essence of the free market, persuasion.

You claim that this is a principle worth following.

Why don't you practice what you preach?

"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,”"
"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich,” said Abraham Lincoln, “and hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.” Barack Obama has made it quite clear he wants to be seen as Lincoln’s heir. But in this instance, he is an heir in open rebellion. He is promising a range of policy initiatives that will have the effect of closing off new pathways to wealth, to the detriment not only of our economy but of our national life as well."

"The United States is organized on the principle of the consent of the governed. Power and legitimacy do not flow from the state to the people, but the other way around. In this respect, what individuals do is entirely their own business, just so long as they do not violate the law or the sovereignty of other citizens. Generating wealth is therefore no different from any other private human activity; it is and should remain private, outside the reach of government, until the point at which it impinges on others."

"In the view of the Obamaites, private wealth is not a bad thing, but neither is it a good thing; it is only good if it can be used in furtherance of large-scale public goals.

But this understanding is deeply flawed, because it fails to take into account the factors that motivate the generation of wealth. Those who work to get rich are not doing so because they are seeking to provide enhanced tax receipts for the government, or to make it easier for government to do what elected officials and unelected bureaucrats think is best. They are, rather, fulfilling basic human desires—to excel, to succeed, to best the other person, to show the old man. Those desires provide the drive. The drive provides the wealth. The wealth provides the ancillary benefit for others. And the act of wealth creation itself creates opportunities for others. Americans pursue business and wealth for their own reasons, and we should be deeply hesitant to throw those out with the proverbial bathwater. The unintended consequences of such action could be catastrophic."

There is much more.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/wealth-creation-under-attack-15158

It's NOT about how good any plan is Roy; it's about whether the planners have the RIGHT
By the way, thanks for correcting my spelling Roy.

That's not evidence, that's more opinion
"The first choice of the socialist environuts is to get their way with government force (taxes like cap and trade). In addition, they refuse to support the one technology that can provide unlimited energy, nuclear power."

I guess that means I'm not a "socialist environut".. nor is Mr Gerbach.

By the way, the rest of us mean something different when we ask for "evidence". It means something taken from the real world that exemplifies your argument. What you've given us isn't that. It's just more unsupported ranting.

You CAN tell the difference between evidence and opinion.. can't you?

Persuasion is the essence of politics
.. not of the free market. It has nothing to do with markets, free or unfree. In fact, totalitarian dictatorships are centered around another kind of persuasion.. making a hash of your comment.

You're so bound up in your monomania you just can't think of anything else. It's like those people who see communists under every bush. Even ice cream, or shoes, reminds them of communism. It's a neurological issue. Maybe you had a cranial injury when you were young.

"Why don't you practice what you preach?"

Because I'm not trying to get you to do anything. So there's no need. Wehrbach has been trying to modify behavior.. and, I think, succeeding quite admirably.

No Subject
Marjon framed his comment as being a response to mine. But it has nothing to do with anything I said.

Show me where I advocate taking away someone's property. Here's my comment, in full:

..Wehrbach is an example of someone moving the dialog forward. He carefully listens to both sides, and then builds trial solutions acceptable to both. He's the anti-polarizer.

As such he's likely to be flamed by zealots from either side. But he does one very good thing: he broadens the middle ground. Extremists and ideologues can never change, so they will never be agents of change. Wehrbach, a pragmatist, will always be near the center of the things that actually do change.

Here's a good article, in Fast Company, about his encounters with WalMart:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/working-with-the-enemy.html

He's a good advertisement for the approach of hiring boy wonders to run things, instead of old fossils. So far he's got my vote.

Advocating government control of the economy
It's not just me. Government control of the economy has been the standard for the past century.

The banking system, and thus the entire manufacturing economy the country used to be based on, was unable to keep itself out of trouble, or repair structural problems that impeded its operation. One reason was that no one was in authority.. and the markets followed that law that when everyone is acting in his own selfish interest, the markets as a whole damage the fortunes of all.

You should know that law. It's the one that says that when everyone expects prices to go up they raise their own prices in anticipation. Thus they are acting in their own selfish interest, but performing an action that ends up damaging to all.

In other words there are many occasions where markets function very badly, without external stimuli. That's what government action is premised on.

At any rate, I digress. Repeated, and increasingly severe, recession-depressions like the Panic of 1907 led the government to finally accede to an idea proposed by.. bankers. They empowered the Federal Reserve to control the supply of money being lent or circulated. Thus putting a lid on the self-destructive activities of bankers.

IMO, from that point forward, things have neither gotten better nor gotten worse.

It's most certainly about how good the plan is
A good plan, properly implemented, can improve the fortunes of all. Without the plan, everyone could do the best they could do under the existing circumstances.. but not as well as they'd be doing after the plan becomes a reality.

There are times when force, intelligently employed is a good thing. Here's an example:

The barbarians are coming across the steppe. Word gets to the Tsar they are planning to enslave the population. So he creates a draft, issuing an edict that every able bodies male report for duty, bringing such weapons as he possesses.

Government force? For sure. But it gets results. Imagine if the Tsar had been a libertarian. They'd all be speaking Mongolian.

Not a great example
The Detroit area's not that good for growing crops. A wiser use would be as an urban area.

And the problem's not in the suburbs. They function pretty well. The problem's with the city center, that was ignorantly cut up back in the sixties to make in-town freeway interconnections. No neighborhoods were left intact.

Detroit's the prime example where **** poor urban planning has led to the demise of a once-great city. Now you have to live in Dearborn instead.

Extremists under the bed
"It is not in the interest of extremists in either camp that an actual solution to the problem should be achieved."

Assuming such individuals exist, their goals would be peripheral to those of the rest of us, whose fortunes depend on trying to foresee and mitigate disaster to the degree we are capable. So, such people would not matter in the least. They would be marginal troublemakers.

"This is why global warming is so delicious. It is happening anyway...faster than can be explained by any models blaming it on us...and we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon either."

This kind of thing amazes me. Global warming, by your own words, is unfolding with increasing speed.. as is our industrial civilization that has now covered the earth. And that constitutes proof that there's no connection?

For sure, we will not be converting from fossil fuel usage in time to change anything. That's why I favor more active forms of intervention.

Forms which, I note in passing, are anathema to the more rigid faction among the enviro crowd. To them, that's copping out. We "should" be living pure lives, leaving only the lightest of footprints. They evade recognition of the existence of people like monster truck fans.

"Should". It's a strong word, and one that performs no work.

What is 'uncessessary econonmic growth'?
"The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending:

1. Development of adequate national and global policies to curb energy over-use and unnecessary economic growth. "

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/nuc-power.aspx

They oppose nuclear energy because is can provide unlimited economic growth. Sierra Club is opposed to economic growth.


"Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

"Mr. Rogers belongs to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, about 30 companies that decided they were going to dance with the U.S. government to the tune of global warming legislation. The group demanded a "cap-and-trade" system, figuring they'd craft the rules so as to obtain regulatory certainty, with little upfront cost. At the time, Mr. Rogers explained: "If you don't have a seat at the table, you'll wind up on the menu.""

"Truth is, any cap-and-trade system is a tax, even if Mr. Obama's plan has only started to force business proponents to admit it. The government sets a cap on how much greenhouse gas can be emitted annually. Companies buy and sell permits that allow them to emit. Customers bear the price of those permits."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630254209847245.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r5:c0.189079:b22823748

Taxes are government force.

Coercsion is the essence of government.
You support mob rule. What the majority wants it should get regardless of how it may affect the minority.

Your first inclination to solve any problem is a government regulation.

So yes, you are trying to get me to do something by using government force.

An urban area needs people. Most have moved away.
Most of those remaining are on welfare and have a mayor in jail. But, who should be surprised with a democrat majority rule?

"Elephants Are Latest Refugees From Mugabe's Zimbabwe"
"Hundreds of wild elephants are the latest refugees from violence and disorder in Robert Mugabe's crisis-torn Zimbabwe. The animals are fleeing the country by wading across the Zambezi river to escape being shot or trapped by so-called "war veterans" and illegal hunters. "

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-28-2003-48969.asp

"But while species are perishing in most developing nations, animal populations have grown in some southern African countries, such as Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa. Most of these countries possess no greater financial resources, more favorable weather patterns, or lower population growth rates than other poor states. They have succeeded in protecting animal populations not by regulating animal habitats but by embracing free-market environmentalism, a theory of conservation that has become popular in rich nations over the past two decades—but which actually holds more promise for the developing world. "

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=2544&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2544

Before Zimbabwe started socialism, such free market environmentalism helped the elephants. Now, socialism is killing elephants, too.



"In the 80s and 90s, Zimbabwean elephant management was a magnificent illustration of how property rights and markets combine to protect and even rescue endangered species.

Since Robert Mugabe’s government turned to racist demagoguery and violence to keep in power, the elephant has suffered tremendously as property rights and markets have been shattered. Today, it is reported that
elephants are being slaughtered for food by Mugabe’s army."

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/01/09/elephantine-mistake/

Protecting the right to profit
Did you notice that the Sierra Club statement you chose was dated 1974? Why am I supposed to have an opinion as to whatever they may have been thinking back then? The times were very different.

I am not to be held responsible for the opinions of others, unless I specifically endorse them. On the question of which profits are legitimate and which are excessive, I would have to look at the social costs we all pay, in some specific instance, to enable the profits of a few.

And yes, I can imagine cases where such profits might be called an excessive price to pay, for a fuel that ruins large tracts of land to mine, and produces a waste product that can't be disposed of. The government, after all, has no mandate to ensure and promote private profits going to individuals, above the interests of the nation. Does it?

You tell me if it does.

The so called reality AFTER a so called good plan is implemented is only a conjecture; but forcing
people to take on the obligation of seeing that “others do as well as well as they'd be doing after the plan becomes a reality” is a violation of each person’s Right to live his/her life WITHOUT EVER being FORCED to help anybody.

Evidence
You asked for evidence.

The US Constitution was written over 200 years ago. The ten commandments thousands of years ago.

So the SC hasn't changed their opposition to free markets for 35 years. And note the 1974 statement is on a current web page.

"So far, June's chill is one for the records"
"The cloudy, chilly and rainy open to June here has been the talk of the town. So far this June is running more than 12 degrees cooler than last year, and the clouds, rain and chilly lake winds have been persistent. The average temperature at O'Hare International Airport through Friday has been only 59.5 degrees: nearly 7 degrees below normal and the coldest since records there began 50 years ago.

More bad weather is on the way Saturday with a cold rain expected to linger through the bulk of the morning. Rainfall could be heavy -- especially north of the city, which would be a reversal of Thursday's deluge that targeted the southern suburbs.
"

http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog/2009/06/chilly-junes-2009-open-one-for-2.html

"midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia"
" For the second time in little over a year, it looks as though the world may be heading for a serious food crisis, thanks to our old friend "climate change". In many parts of the world recently the weather has not been too brilliant for farmers. After a fearsomely cold winter, June brought heavy snowfall across large parts of western Canada and the northern states of the American Midwest. In Manitoba last week, it was -4ºC. North Dakota had its first June snow for 60 years.

There was midsummer snow not just in Norway and the Cairngorms, but even in Saudi Arabia. At least in the southern hemisphere it is winter, but snowfalls in New Zealand and Australia have been abnormal. There have been frosts in Brazil, elsewhere in South America they have had prolonged droughts, while in China they have had to cope with abnormal rain and freak hailstorms, which in one province killed 20 people."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html

Say Marjon, should the children of the Holocaust Museum guard killer “Honor their father”?
..

Should you?
Maybe if they did he would not have been so bitter.

Shame on you Marjon, to imply that the CHILDREN of the killer are indirect ABETTORS
..

Shame on you for twisting the Ten Comandments...
...to satisfy your atheistic statism.

Honor your father and mother.
"We should fear and love God that we do not dishonor or anger our parents and others in authority, but honor, serve, and obey them, and give them love and respect."

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=711&contentID=4333&shortcutID=2076#ten



"The son of the bigot who stormed the U.S. Holocaust Museum issued an apology yesterday to the family of slain guard Stephen Johns - and he called his father's actions "unforgivable."

Erik von Brunn said father James von Brunn's racist and anti-Semitic views had tormented his family.

"His views consumed him, and in doing so, not only destroyed his life, but destroyed our family and ruined our lives as well," he wrote in a statement obtained by ABC News.

"For a long time, I believed this was our family's cross to bear. Now, it is not only my families' lives that are in shambles, but those who were directly affected by his actions, especially the family of Mr. Johns, who bravely sacrificed his life to stop my father."

"The son had a message for those who sympathize with his dad: "What he did was an act of cowardice."

"To physically force your beliefs onto others with violence is not brave, but bullying. Doing so only serves to prove how weak those beliefs are. It is simply desperation, reminiscent of a temper tantrum when a child cannot get his way."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/13/2009-06-13_son_of_museum_maniac_says_sorry_for_sins_of_bigot_father.html#ixzz0IQWSaiKo&D



I think the son and family are and have been following the Fourth Commandment.

Inbred environmentalism
Let's face it: Environmentalism is no steps removed from New Aged spirituality. I can picture enviro-friendly wellness spas smearing pure mud in my face while tree-hugging moonrock worshipers attempt to fill my mind with crap.

Will a few sessions of global warming brainwashing really alter the behavior of gluttons? STOP STUFFING YOUR FACE, YOU PIG, OR YOU'LL KILL THE PLANET ALONG WITH YOURSELF! Somehow I doubt it.

I'll believe there's a bold new breed of environmentalism when the majority of environmentalists put their faith in technology and markets instead of government to solve environmental problems. Until then, I can do nothing other than despise them.

I didn't twist; I asked a specific question & you implied that children who don’t honor parents
are abettors of (their) parents’ crimes.


See my post titled "I didn't twist. .....", above
..

What was it, drug use?
How did your brain get to be this way?

TCS Daily Archives