“Greed is good” became the mantra of the late 80’s as Gordon Gecko became the poster child of self-interested power brokers neglecting the plight of the average man.
On Sept. 24, “Money Never Sleeps” will be released and the continuing saga of Gecko has the catchphrase on the public’s mind once again.
Today, that saying could easily be replaced by the slogan “green is good” because environmentalists, like Gecko in the 80s, believe themselves powerful enough to be nearly untouchable.
Anyone who labels themselves “green” has a perceived marketing advantage. Without fully understanding the implications of “green,” people support the concept as being generally better. Without a specific universal definition, products as diverse as political candidates, diapers, and cars proudly sport the moniker.
When it come to energy, green—typically referring to wind, solar, and biomass—is definitely, at least according to the popular misconception, the preferred way to go, despite not being economically viable or beneficial.
A recent New Mexico poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies indicated that, while the vast majority of respondents acknowledged that natural gas was “important” or “very important” to the state’s economy, more than a third of those same people believed that green energy technologies should be pursued instead of traditional technologies like natural gas. These respondents believe green is good.
But what would the world – and the economy — look like if environmentalists had their way and their green wishes were granted?
To find the answer, researching the goals of environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited, is in order. My organization, Citizen’s Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE), undertook this task.
We looked at well-known groups as well as smaller, regional, and/or specifically targeted issue groups to draft a broad view of environmentalists’ goals as they relate to energy. The initial work was conducted three years ago.
However, the above-mentioned poll data, conducted much later than the research, highlighted a disconnect between the “green is good” perception and reality. So CARE republished the study recently at The Hill with the updated poll data and fresh research.
The study primarily seeks to answer the question of what the world might look like should the environmentalists succeed in their efforts. Would it be the “environmental utopia” it’s been purported to be?
Would there be “rivers and streams running so clear and clean that you can bend a knee to the water, cup your hands, and drink without fear,” as one enviro website states as a goal? Would we be able to “explore, enjoy and protect wild places of the earth,” as another posits?
Would environmental utopia feature a “rural character” and a “unique quality of life,” as proposed by yet another? Hardly.
By using the combined energy goals of the 25 different groups and applying them to four key areas — transportation, modern conveniences, health, and housing – the study makes clear that the world would look nothing like today.
First, gasoline would be nearly non-existent as an energy resource. Travel would be done on horseback or some other animal. With the number of people in America today, with one horse per household, there would need to be approximately 75 million horses and 357 million acres of farm land just to feed the horses. It is probably unnecessary to point out the problems that arise from the management of waste from this kind of massive livestock use.
Essentials such as cars, washers and dryers, air conditioners, microwaves, television, computers and cell phones would all be gone. They’re energy dependent. The plastics are made of petroleum. Food supplies and healthcare, for the same reasons, would also be virtually non-existent.
The extreme result is a life in caves without fresh water or waste disposal. With four to a household, that’s 75 million caves.
The logical conclusion is that too much green is not good. Acting as wise stewards of the environment is one thing; but a label that promotes green does not necessarily promote the wisest choice.
Freedom of choice is sacrosanct in the US. If someone chooses to live in a cave, they are free to do just that. But that should be an individual choice, not something that is regulated or legislated. Energy makes America great; a world without energy would hardly be an environmental utopia.
Marita Noon is executive director of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy, a New Mexico-based nonprofit advocating for citizens’ right to energy that is abundant, available, and affordable.
