The types of investments being offered today as "green" investments did not just appear out of thin air. They are the result of a cruel and contradictory ideology called ecology. Today, it is mostly known as "environmentalism."
This ideology has been impregnated into the psyche of investors for years, and has misled and ultimately duped them into investing in companies that:
- Sacrifice profits in order to maximize "social good" and;
- Focus on "green" technologies that must be propped up by government subsidies.
These kinds of investments set investors up for failure and are often outperformed by their "non-green" counterparts when subsidies and actual profits are taken into account. To understand this irrational investment behavior, consider the roots of modern environmentalism.
By the end of the 18th century, Western philosophers began attacking the very foundation of individualism. The same individualism that laid the foundation for the greatest country on Earth: America.
Those pro-reason, pro-individual, ideas became seriously threatened when a German philosopher, named Immanuel Kant, began spreading his ideas. The essence of Kant's philosophy was that reality was subjective rather than objective. He also argued that the senses were invalid and incapable of identifying reality and that they merely provided a distortion of it. He called the real world the "noumenal world" and he called the world we perceive the "phenomenal world."
The phenomenal world is the world inside of our heads and is supposed to be an altered form of an actual reality which we cannot perceive directly allegedly due to the way our minds work. Another German philosopher, George Hegel, refined Kant's ideas. While Hegel did have some ideas which differed from Kant, Hegel ultimately concluded that reality was inherently contradictory. Hegel's “true reality” consisted of the "identity of opposites," and he used dialectic logic (combinations of opposites to form a "higher truth"; i.e. the French Revolution which is opposed by the Reign of Terror which followed, which ultimately lead to the "higher truth" of a constitutional state of free people) to assert that everything in reality has "internal contradictions," but that these contradictions could be used to synthesize a higher-level idea.
Collectively, these ideas were used as a foundation to attack the field of ethics. They were used to argue that reality wasn't real, that human beings were not individuals, and that they were instead part of a larger collective called “society."
Hegel went on to explicitly state that:
A single person, I need hardly say, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole Hence if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it.
These ideas are what led to the pseudo-science of ecology. It's important to note that ecology isn't a science in the traditional sense. It was originally conceived as a philosophical movement using the prestige of science to lend credibility to its claims. The actual term "ecology" was coined by Ernst Haeckel in his 1866 in his book titled Generelle Morphologie. In it, he defined ecology as:
the science of the relationships between organisms and their environment.
The definition that Haeckel uses is entirely misleading. Philosophy deals explicitly with the relationship between an organism and its environment. It does this by explaining the fundamental nature of living entities and their relationship to reality. As an analogy, philosophy represents the soil, and science represents the plants that grow in the soil. Since ecology studies the relationship between living and non-living entities and their environment, it constitutes philosophy and not a special science.
Science operates by systematic study, observation, experimentation, and development of a hypothesis. That hypothesis is then checked against the facts and accepted or rejected. Science also isn't "static." Facts can change the conclusion that a scientist might reach for any given hypothesis at any time. Ecology doesn't actually do this, despite claims to the contrary.
To make matters worse, Haeckel’s "scientific" work consisted primarily of studying microscopic life forms. From these studies, he made very broad and sweeping generalizations about the world and man's place in it. His ideas were based on two false premises, which were used to gain political influence at that time. These ideas were:
1) Holistic Biology; and
2) Resource Economics
Holistic Biology
Holistic Biology is the theory that all things, living and non-living, are one and the same. This means that you and a tree share some kind of special bond or that you and a rock are cosmic cousins and are somehow linked together, telepathically or physically (somehow). If this all sounds a tad bit ridiculous, it's because it is. Haeckel's pseudo scientific claim does not make the distinction between living organisms and non-living organisms--distinctions which are real.
Living organisms use energy to sustain their life, and that life isn't guaranteed. It's conditional. All living organisms face an alternative: life or death. If an organism fails to take the actions necessary to sustain its own life, it dies. Non-living entities, like rocks, face no such alternative. A rock, for example, cannot be for or against itself. Its existence is not conditional. It doesn't eat, it doesn't sleep, and it doesn't expend energy in order to exist. It releases or absorbs energy in response to external forces rather than internal forces. In other words, it's just there.
Most people know and understand that there is a significant difference between a rock and a human being. But under the theory of holistic biology, you are asked to accept, as a matter of blind faith (because no scientific explanation is offered) that “everything is connected somehow." Don't look so confused just yet because it gets better.
Ecology attempts to explain this connection by misapplying established scientific principles. It attempts to connect independent and distinct biological organisms together to form a unique “collective organism." In other words, none of us are truly unique according to ecology. Since this makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine, something was needed to make it understandable to the common man. To dumb down the incomprehensible hypothesis a bit for the masses, Darwin’s theory of the “survival of the fittest” was used as a simple explanation for "Holistic Biology".
The problem is that Darwin's theories don't explain Holistic Biology. Not by a long-shot. For example, if a given ecosystem experiences a change in its structure (i.e. a drought, earthquake, fire, etc.) then whatever is part of that ecosystem, if it is alive, will react to those changes. The theory of Holistic Biology says that because all of the organisms are reacting to the same change, that this proves that they are all "connected." The change, it is said, is masterfully orchestrated by a collective organism which ecologists call “Mother Nature."
The reality is this: organisms that have had their proverbial ant farm shaken up are just scrambling to survive. They don't have a choice in the matter.
It is the basic nature of self-preservation that the organism is going through. If there's a fire or a drought and organisms die, then this will affect the food chain, yes. There may be more animals chasing less food. When enough animals die, it could have a profound effect on that ecosystem. But that doesn't suddenly change the fact that each organism is an individual organism. That plant is still just one plant. That wild boar is still just one boar. That duck is still just one duck, and so on.
What Holistic Biology asks us to do is set aside everything we know to be true, everything we can plainly see with our own two eyes, and accept the allegedly "higher truth" that the ecosystem is a "collective organism."
Resource Economics
Resource Economics is the theory that resources that are used can never be used again in any other form. The theory does not argue that a particular resource might become scarce but rather that it is irretrievably lost. This assertion that all resources on Earth are finite is then used to argue that human beings must be concerned with preserving whatever resources remain.
There are a few problems with this notion. First, the Earth is a huge natural resource. Running out of resources would mean that the entire Earth is literally used up. We're nowhere near that stage. Additionally, the resources that are used are used for a purpose. Humans are not equipped to survive in the world "naturally." We don't have fangs, or claws, or any special physical abilities. What we do have is a rational mind which we must use to mold our environment to meet our physical and psychological needs. One of those needs is the need for energy.
Humans are very clever, and over the years we've become especially efficient at converting matter into energy. We've gone from from burning wood to burning coal, to splitting the atom, and eventually the possible fusion of atoms for energy (as opposed to making hydrogen bombs). Without our ability to convert matter to energy, we'll die.
What makes the idea of Resource Economics invalid, morally, is the fact that it would require that one person (or government) violate the individual rights of another person. A person, group of people, or a government would have to initiate force against an individual, or group of individuals, to prevent them from pursuing their own life, liberty, and their own happiness. Want to have a 4th of July celebration? Forget it. You're polluting the air with your cookout. Want to drive to work? Forget it, you're using up too many natural resources (i.e. oil and gasoline). Taken to its logical extreme, you would be prevented from using any resources. At best, the government would determine an arbitrary minimum necessary to keep you physically alive.
What makes Resource Economics invalid, as a scientific hypothesis, is another hypothesis which Einstein initially developed and which was later proved to be true: that E=MC2. Ecology presupposes, in the face of a blaring contradiction, that matter and energy can be "used up" and destroyed. This is the meaning of "irretrievable." Einstein says otherwise -- that mass and energy cannot be destroyed and irretrievably lost. If resources are finite (which they are), but they could be used to produce more energy (which they can), then the idea of Resource Economics seems nonsensical (which it is).
Historical Foundations of Modern Environmentalism
Because the ideas of ecology don't stand up to scrutiny, they had to be promoted by force. After all, false ideas cannot be implemented on a rational basis. In 1905, Haeckel became president of the Monist League, an organization that explicitly advocated "ecology by force." By 1920, the movement known as “Back to the Land” had risen in popularity.
Capitalism was seen as the evil, unnatural, too "individualistic," wasteful of natural resources, non-holistic, profit driven, etc.. Coercive laws were very effective at controlling free-enterprise and individualism, but with more regulation comes more opposition. Political pull, lobbying, and political activism became the dominant force in shaping a culture.
The ideas of ecology became a major contributor to the political process in 1930s Germany. The country was going through a "green revolution."
"Blood and Soil" was the ecological catch-phrase during that time. Ecologists were also successful in lobbying for antivivisection laws (the prevention of using animals for scientific and medical research and testing), "nature" and "wildlife preserves" were created, organic farming (at the time it was called "biodynamic farming") became popular. The general idea was to "be kind to the Earth." Large, private, lands were taken away from landholders and given to German peasants as part of the "Back to the Land" movement.
These laws and regulations became the foundation of a growing political party which used "Blood and Soil" ethics and "ecology by force" to initiate change in the German way of life for a “better tomorrow." That political party was called The National Socialist German Worker’s Party, otherwise known as the NAZI Party.
Ecology Comes To America
With World War II, the ecology movement died out. The ideas of the "Back to the Land" and "ecology by force" conflicted with Germany’s need for technological advancement to win the war. After the war, the world saw how destructive Germany's collectivist ideas could be.
In 1962, Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, resurrected 19th Century falsehoods and once again brought them to the public’s awareness. Instead of a German audience, it was directed at Americans. The movement has been steadily growing ever since.
Today, we see vestiges of 1920-1930’s Germany. For example, we have an Environmental Protection Agency whose job is to "police" America and protect the environment from human beings. We have extremist and environmental terrorist organizations like Earth First! who openly admit to using acts of violence to accomplish their goals (a throwback to the old idea of "ecology by force").
Philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, writes:
The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!
A review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, by biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989):
Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
We even have a former politician, Al Gore, who – parting ways with his mentor Dr. Roger Revelle – has insisted that oceanic water levels will rise 20 feet, contradicting the corresponding IPCC report from which he based his research on. Still, Gore insists that we must "do something." That "something" always involves coercive laws and regulations.
Additionally, in the December 2007 issue of International Journal of Climatology we see the most readily available climate data with the models used by the IPCC, and the results of the most recent study:
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 'Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
These findings are consistent with older IPCC reports including the Climate Change Report back in 2001. A co-author of the study, Dr. Fred S. Singer, states:
The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface¬ and thus the climate. Our research demonstrates that the ongoin g rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly.
In addition to this, a Senate Report reveals that 400 prominent scientists disagree with the popular vision of AGW and are "offended" by Gore’s manipulation of data and the formation of his "scientific consensus."
In a cruel twist of irony, there are apparently extremists and even some moderate environmentalists drawing a connection between Global Warming deniers and Holocaust deniers. Apparently, they do not know the history of ecology and environmentalism or they are evading historical fact.
With that said, most individuals who believe in environmentalism are not extremists, they don’t explicitly hate human life, but they do support an evil ideology. They support an ideology that has moved beyond investing in "green" investments. They support an ideology that takes Holistic Biology and Resource Economics to its logical conclusion, thus creating a new method for investing that promotes the sacrifice of the individual to the group.
The result has been a wellspring of mismanaged companies propped up by government subsidies and providing investments focused on charitable giving, environmental sustainability, maximization of social utility, and "fairness." These investments are focused on anything and everything except profits. This is bad for you if you're an investor who wants to maximize profits.
Since these "green" companies put profit maximization in the back seat and focus more on "social responsibility," you could do quite well without the premium of "going green" (AKA a loss of profits due to a false ideology). In fact, the most profitable companies don't worry about "social responsibility" (or only give it lip service) and instead focus on maximizing long-term profits to shareholders.
Consider the 2011 bankruptcy of Solyndra, a "green" company that was focused on solar power. In 2009, the company received $535 million dollars from the U.S. Government in the form of a guaranteed loan. Despite all of this funding, the company still failed. In response to Solyndra's bankruptcy, Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, is quoted as saying "You can't end loan subsidies for renewable energy. That would be a disaster." Indeed it would be a disaster -- for renewable energy companies. They just can't survive without your tax dollars.
Compare this failure against the backdrop of oil companies that exist without any government subsidies (they receive massive tax breaks, but those tax breaks are not unlike tax deductions given to all businesses and are not actual subsidies) and that succeed, year after year, while maximizing profits for shareholders.
In your search for the perfect investment strategy, adopt a rational approach to investing. You may not win any awards, but you will be investing in companies that work for your benefit, and are motivated by money to become more and more efficient and thus more and more profitable without going artificially green.
If you'd like more evidence that ecology and environmentalism is harmful to human life, I've provided a few resources for you:
**
Website Reference
A non-religious, non-political, website dedicated to an objective approach to science and the philosophy of ecology and environmentalism.
A website founded by a former AGW supporter who is now telling the truth about Global Warming.
Other References
A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism by Gregg Easterbrook, contributing editor, U.S. News & World Report (Viking, 1995)
Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation by Justice Stephen Breyer (Harvard University Press, 1993; paperback, 1995)
But Is It True? by Aaron Wildavsky (Harvard University Press, 1994) (hardcover)
Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Fear Global Warming by Thomas Gale Moore (Cato Institute, 1998) (hardcover)
Culture of Fear: Risk Taking and the Morality of Low Expectation by Frank Furedi (Cassell, 1997)
Down to Earth: A Contrarian View of Environmental Problems by Matt Ridley (Institute of Economic Affairs/London, 1995)
Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism by Joseph L. Bast, Peter J. Hill, and Richard C. Rue (Madison Books, 1994)
Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse by Ronald Bailey (St. Martin's Press, 1993)
Exploding Population Myths by Jim Peron (Heartland Institute, 1995)
Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery Gateway, 1993) (hardcover)
Environmental Politics: Public Costs, Private Rewards, edited by Michael S. Greve and Fred L. Smith, Jr. (Praeger, New York, 1992)
Excessive Force: Power, Politics, and Population Control by Elizabeth Liagin, (Information Project for Africa, 1997)
Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America by Jonathan Adler (Capital Research Center, 1996)
Facts Not Fear: A Parent's Guide to Environmental Education by Michael Sanera and Jane Shaw (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1996)
Facts vs. Fears: A Review of the 20 Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times by Adam J. Lieberman (American Council on Science and Health, 1997)
Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science, by Alan D. Sokal and Jean Bricmont (Picador/St. Martins Press, December 1998, 300 pp.)
Free Market Energy: The Way to Benefit Consumers, edited by S. Fred Singer (Universe Books, 1984)
Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom by Peter W. Huber (Basic Books, 1991)
Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences, edited by S. Fred Singer (Paragon House, 1989)
Global Greens: Inside the International Environmental Establishment by Jim Sheehan (Capital Research Center, 1998)
Global Warming: Apocalypse or Hot Air? by Roger Bate and Julian Morris (Institute of Economic Affairs/London, 1994)
Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by Tamara L. Roleff (Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1997) (hardcover)
Gore: A Political Life, by Robert Zelnick (National Book Network, March 1999, 380 pp.)
Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism by Martin W. Lewis (Duke University Press, 1992) (hardcover)
Growth, the Environment and the Distribution of Incomes: Essays by a Sceptical Optimist (Economists of the Twentieth Century) by Wilfred Beckerman (Edward Elgar, 1995)
Haunted Housing: How Toxic Scare Stories Are Spooking the Public Out of House and Home by Cassandra Moore (Cato Institute, 1997)
Health, Lifestyle & Environment: Countering the Panic by The Social Affairs Unit of the Manhattan Institute (Manhattan Institute, Washington, D.C. 1991)
Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate by S. Fred Singer (Independent Institute, Oakland, California, 1997)
In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology by syndicated newspaper columnist Alston Chase (Houghton Mifflin, 1995)
Klimalüge by Manfred Mueller (Irene Müller Verlag, 1998). For more information, see www.itcm.com/ENERI .
Knowledge and the Federal Courts by Kenneth R. Foster and Peter W. Huber (MIT Press, 1997)
Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?, by Michael Ruse (Harvard University Press, 1999, 320 pp.)
Observing Global Climate Change by Kirill Kondratyev and A. P. Cracknell (Taylor and Francis Ltd., 1998)
Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy: Funding Enemies, Forsaking Friends by Austin Fulk. (Capital Research Center, 1996)
Phantom Risk: Scientific Interference and the Law by Kenneth R. Foster (MIT Press, 1993)
Polluted Science: The EPA's Campaign to Expand Clean Air Regulations by Michael Fumento (American Enterprise Press, 1997)
Population and Development in Poor Countries: Selected Essays by Julian L. Simon (Princeton University Press, 1992)
Population and Development: A Critical Introduction by Frank Furedi (St. Martin's Press, 1997) (hardcover)
Population Matters: People, Resources, Environment, and Immigration by Julian L. Simon (Transaction, 1996)
Protecting the Environment: Old Rhetoric, New Imperatives by Jo Kwong Echard, Studies in Organization Trends (Capital Research Center, 1990)
Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns. Edited by Jay Lehr (John Wiley & Sons, 1997).
Science and the Retreat from Reason by John Gillot and Manjit Kumar (Monthly Review Press, 1998) (hardcover)
Science Under Siege : How the Environmental Misinformation Campaign Is Affecting Our Lives by Michael Fumento (William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1996)
Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem by Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, and Frederick Seitz (The Marshall Press/Jameson Books, Inc., Ottawa, Illinois 1990)
Searching for Safety by Aaron Wildavsky (Transaction Publishers, 1987)
Silencing Science by Steven Milloy and Michael Gough (1998)
Small is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Green by Wilfred Beckerman (Duckworth Press, 1995)
Taking the Environment Seriously, edited by Roger E. Meiners and Bruce Yandle (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993)
The Doomsday Myth by Charles Maurice and Charles W. Smithson (Hoover Institution Press, 1984)
The Economics of Population: Key Writings by Julian L. Simon (Transaction, 1998)
The Flight from Science and Reason, edited by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 775, 1996)
The Flight from Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information by Jean-Francois Revel (Random House, 1992)
The Global Warming Debate: The Report of the European Science & Environment Forum, edited by John Emsley (Bourne Press Limited, 1996)
The Green Crusade: Rethinking the Roots of Environmentalism by Charles T. Rubin (The Free Press, 1994)
The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality by Robert C. Balling, Jr. (Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992) (hardcover)
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand.
The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, by Tom Bethell (St. Martins Press, 1998)
The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the '90s, by Bernard Leonard Cohen (Plenum, 1990).
The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000 by Julian L. Simon and Herman Kahn (Basil Blackwell, 1984)
The Revolt of the Elites: And the Betrayal of Democracy by Christopher Lasch (W.W. Norton & Co, 1996) (hardcover)
The State of Humanity, edited by Julian L. Simon (Blackwell Publishers, 1995)
The True State of the Planet: Ten of the World's Premier Researchers in a Major Challenge to the Environmental Movement, edited by Ronald Bailey (The Free Press, 1995)
The Way the World Works, by Jude Wanniski (Gateway Editions, 1998)
Through Green-Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered by Wilfred Beckerman (CATO Institute, 1996) (hardcover)
Toxic Terror: The Truth About the Cancer Scares by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan (Jameson Books, 1993)
Trashing the Planet: How Science Can Help Us Deal with Acid Rain, Depletion of the Ozone, and Nuclear Waste (among other things) by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery Gateway, 1990)
You might also like
_________________________This entry was posted on December 28th, 2011 by David C Lewis, RFC. Edits may have been made to keep this entry current. · No Comments · Investing, Philosophy In Financial Planning
No Comments so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.