Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Greens Against Renewable Energy

Posted by ARI Media at 9:48 PM

Washington, DC—Green activists have been pushing for "renewable energy" for decades, even though it shows little promise—after billions of dollars in government subsidies—of ever being practical and inexpensive. Nevertheless, plans are springing up all over the country for large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects.

But now, in addition to their enormous technical obstacles, these green power projects are facing fierce opposition . . . from environmentalists.

The Bureau of Land Management has reportedly received more than 130 proposals to build solar power plants on federal lands in the Southwest. New transmission lines to carry the power from the sun-baked deserts to places where electricity users actually live are also under consideration.

However, the solar applications are mired in environmental impact studies, which one solar industry executive said "could completely stunt the growth of the industry." And the plans for new transmission capacity are being ferociously protested by environmentalists decrying the "permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands."

According to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Center: "This just shows the true objective of green activism. Environmentalists don't actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether.

"The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy—even ones that are supposedly green and renewable—will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.

"Since the use of energy is an indispensable component of everything we do in our lives, the greens' opposition to even such ridiculous, impractical sources of energy as solar and wind reveals their basic animus against human life.

"An exasperated Arnold Schwarzenegger said 'if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it.' But that is the whole point. On green philosophy, there is literally no place on earth for mankind."

Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

For Greens, the Energy Crisis Is Not a Problem, It's the Solution

Posted by ARI Media at 3:15 PM

Irvine, CA—Two of the problems our presidential candidates are being called upon to solve are the spiraling cost of energy and the "crisis" of man-made global warming. Both Senators McCain and Obama claim to have a unified strategy for tackling both problems.

"The notion that these two issues can be addressed simultaneously is nonsense," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "No policy aimed at 'fighting global warming' can help solve the energy crisis. An energy crisis is the proposed 'solution' to global warming.

"More than 85 percent of the world's energy comes from carbon-producing fossil fuels. And despite all the propaganda we hear about a 'new energy economy' just around the corner, there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon. Any measures enacted to 'fight climate change' can lead only to a worsening of the energy crisis.

"And it is not at all clear that climate change is something that needs to be fought. Even though we are constantly told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, in fact global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes and a catastrophic rise in sea levels, yet the data don't support such claims. Global warming alarmism is more environmentalist hype than scientific fact.

"There is no evidence that cutting off our carbon emissions would have any noticeable impact on the world's climate," Lockitch said. "Yet it would cause a catastrophic blow to the world's economy and therefore to people's lives. Energy use is an indispensable component of almost everything we do every day. And billions of people around the world are suffering right now for lack of abundant energy.

"The only crisis we need to worry about is the unnecessarily high cost of energy—and the solution to that is to remove coercive Green restrictions on oil production, and to start drilling and burning."

### ### ###

Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Lockitch or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Investigate Big Congress, Not Big Oil by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 11:38 AM

With gasoline prices exceeding $4 a gallon in some states, politicians are responding as usual: Blame Big Oil First. Several prominent senators have once again summoned industry leaders to Capitol Hill, subjecting them to yet another barrage of rhetorical questions, interruptions, accusations, and sermons. The lawmakers' goal, claims Sen. Patrick Leahy, is to identify "causes of the rising price of oil on which Congress can act." But the foregone conclusion is that "price gouging," "collusion," and "market manipulation" by Big Oil, or speculation by financiers, is responsible.

The simple fact that such Congressional investigations are designed to obscure is that the prices of oil and gasoline are determined by supply and demand—which neither private oil companies nor speculators have any power to dictate in their favor. If they had such market mastery, then why didn't they use it in the 1990s, when gasoline was selling at a barely profitable $1 a gallon? To be sure, speculators can bid up prices—but they only do so when they believe that oil will become even more expensive in the future, and only make money when they are right.

The question Congress should really be asking, then, is: What nonmarket factors are distorting supply and demand? If they sought an honest answer, they would discover that much of the blame lies with Congress itself.

No one disputes that environmentalist laws passed by Congress have cut off some of our most promising and plentiful sources of oil. In the name of safeguarding a tiny portion of caribou habitat in the Alaskan wilderness, drilling is prohibited in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge—a potential source of 1 million barrels a day, 5 percent of America's daily oil consumption. Also off-limits is 85 percent of America's coastline, which Shell estimates contains some 100 billion recoverable barrels—13 times America's annual oil consumption—and the vast majority of oil shale in Colorado, which Shell estimates at 1.5 trillion barrels.

Congress should publicize these facts, prepare an inventory of how many oil-rich areas they have blocked off, and bring in economists to estimate how much all of this raises gas prices.

And how about the effects of Congress's open hostility toward the future of oil? Our politicians damn oil as an "addiction" to be eliminated, and seek to cut—by up to 90 percent—the use of oil and other vital fossil fuels that make our standard of living possible. Congress should ask oil executives how this possible forced cut in demand affects their industry. It should ask whether they feel safe to make the billion dollar investments and decades-long plans that oil production requires when Barack Obama, a leading presidential candidate, can uncontroversially proclaim that "the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil." Is it a coincidence that the much-maligned speculators think oil will become even scarcer in the future, and are acting accordingly?

In addition to investigating its own impact on gasoline prices, Congress should investigate how its economic policy partner, the Federal Reserve, has raised our gas prices by lowering the value of the dollars we buy gasoline with. The Fed, along with the Treasury Department, has for years had an inflationary policy that has caused the value of the dollar to plummet relative to other currencies. Were it not for this devaluation of the dollar, oil prices would likely be 40 percent lower—as they are for those on the Euro. Why not call a free-market economist to the stand and ask how much more expensive Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Henry Paulson have made our gasoline?

Americans deserve to know the story—in all its gory detail—of what their government has done and is doing to cause high prices at the pump, and to make gasoline—indeed, all energy—more scarce and more expensive in the future. A congressional investigation of Congress would be a great public service.

Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right

Posted by ARI Media at 11:16 PM

Who: Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A Ford Hall Forum talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q & A will follow.

Where: Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA

When: Thursday, May 8, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.

Summary: At Ford Hall Forum in 1969, Ayn Rand examined the cultural significance of two high-profile, enormously well-attended but very different events: Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch.

In her lecture, “Apollo and Dionysus,” she showed how philosophical ideas play out in a culture: she showed why these two events, so opposite in nature, were a product of a long-standing philosophical dichotomy, reason versus emotion. She concluded her talk by noting that, against the bromide that man’s senses and reason confine him to the grubby, material world while his mystical emotions lift him to the stars, Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch “offered you a literal dramatization of the truth: it is man’s irrational emotions that bring him down to the mud; it is man’s reason that lifts him to the stars.”

In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will consider how these two opposing forces, reason and emotionalism, have manifested themselves in American culture in the ensuing decades. He will examine the Apollonian elements which are lifting us to the stars. And he will examine the Dionysian elements—religion and environmentalism—which are dragging us back down into the mud, figuratively and literally.

For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Exploit-the-Earth Day Materials

Posted by Craig Biddle at 1:48 PM

April 22 is Exploit-the-Earth Day, and the following banners, blurb, and article are available for use on websites and blogs for the purpose of spreading the word and celebrating the holiday. Let the world know where you stand and why.

Exploit the Earth or Die™
Exploit the Earth or Die™ Exploit the Earth or Die™
Exploit the Earth or Die™ Exploit the Earth or Die™

EED Blurb:

Exploit the Earth or Die™

It’s not a threat. It’s a fact. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

The fact annoys some people. But it shouldn’t: Hence our “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign.

Place an EED banner on your blog or website; wear an EED T-shirt; drink from an EED mug. The good guys will smile. The bad guys will snarl. And the battle for civilization and against “environmentalism” will be brought to the fundamental alternative whereupon the matter ultimately must be decided: life or death.

Copyright ©2008 The Objective Standard. All Rights Reserved.

EED Op-Ed:

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

by Craig Biddle

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign:

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

Copyright ©2008 The Objective Standard. All Rights Reserved.

Labels:

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, April 17, 2008

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:58 PM

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign:

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch

Posted by ARI Media at 10:25 AM

On the evening of Saturday, March 29, cities around the world turned off their lights for one hour to "raise" awareness about global warming. In observation of Earth Hour, iconic landmarks such as the Sears Tower and the Sydney Opera House went dark, while participating individuals turned off residential lights.

The purpose of Earth Hour, according to its organizers, who plan to make it an annual event, is to encourage people to think about how they can reduce their energy consumption. While the event itself—one hour with the lights off—admittedly had little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, say the organizers, is the symbolic meaning of the event. So what is the meaning of Earth Hour?

We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change--that it is now an indisputable fact that human carbon emissions are causing a planetary emergency. Earth Hour is intended to showcase public concern about global warming and to inspire people to take practical actions to reduce their "carbon footprints."

But it is far from indisputable that we face any sort of planetary crisis. Predictions of catastrophic global warming have long been disputed, and continue to be disputed, by numerous serious scientists skeptical of the global warming "consensus."

Furthermore, what is never mentioned is the fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by global warming activists would, itself, cause great harm.

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (in 2005, fossil fuels made up 86 percent of world energy production), this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy consumption.

People don't have a clear sense of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don't consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of our every day. We drive our cars to work and school, we sit in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, and we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that global-warming policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off our use of fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spent the hour star-gazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offered special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

The participants of Earth Hour spent an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, but all the while they remained safe in the knowledge that the comforts and life-saving benefits of industrial civilization were just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what our lives would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that global-warming activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

What is really needed is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible. Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe.

It is true that the real importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights going out. Its call for people to abandon their use of energy and to rejoice at the sight of skyscrapers going dark makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: what Earth Hour represents is the renunciation of industrial civilization.

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right

Posted by ARI Media at 1:44 PM

Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q&A will follow.

Where: Hilton Costa Mesa, 3050 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA  92626

When: Thursday, May 1, 2008, at 7:30 PM

Admission is FREE.

Description: At Ford Hall Forum in 1969, Ayn Rand examined the cultural significance of two high-profile, enormously well-attended but very different events: Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch.

In her lecture, "Apollo and Dionysus," she showed how philosophical ideas play out in a culture: she showed why these two events, so opposite in nature, were a product of a long-standing philosophical dichotomy, reason versus emotion. She concluded her talk by noting that, against the bromide that man's senses and reason confine him to the grubby, material world while his mystical emotions lift him to the stars, reality "last summer . . . offered you a literal dramatization of the truth: it is man's irrational emotions that bring him down to the mud; it is man's reason that lifts him to the stars."

In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will consider how these two opposing forces, reason and emotionalism, have manifested themselves in American culture in the ensuing decades. He will examine the Apollonian elements which are lifting us to the stars. And he will examine the Dionysian elements, which are dragging us back down into the mud, figuratively or literally: religion and environmentalism.

Bio: Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is a contributing editor to The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. He is frequently interviewed in the media and appears weekly on the new Fox Business Network to debate and discuss current economic and business news. His columns and opinion-editorials are published on forbes.com and in major newspapers. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.

For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org.

###  ### ###

Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews now and after his talk.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213

For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site at http://www.aynrand.org/. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

'Earth Hour' Sends a Deceptive Message

Posted by ARI Media at 8:10 PM

Irvine, CA—Last Saturday evening, cities around the world turned off their lights for one hour to "raise awareness about global warming." In observation of "Earth Hour," iconic landmarks such as the Sears Tower and the Sydney Opera House went dark, while participating individuals turned off residential lights.

According to its organizers, the purpose of the annual event is to encourage people to think about how they can reduce their energy consumption. While they acknowledge that one hour with the lights off would have little effect on carbon emissions, the organizers say that what matters is the symbolic meaning of the event.

"In fact," says Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "the symbolic message that Earth Hour sends is deceptive and destructive.

"Despite the constant claim that 'the debate is over' on climate change, it is nowhere near a proven fact that human carbon emissions are causing a 'planetary emergency.' But it is a fact that carbon-based energy is a life-and-death necessity in today's world.

"Earth Hour sends the false message that we must cut off our carbon emissions and that doing so would be easy and even fun! People went star-gazing and held torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offered special candle-lit dinners during the hour. This bears no relation whatsoever to the kinds of sacrifices that would be forced upon us if global warming activists succeed in imposing real carbon-reduction policies.

"We, in the West, take our abundant energy for granted. It is hard for us to imagine what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian restrictions on energy use that global warming activists are demanding. Earth Hour clouds the issue even more by making the renunciation of energy seem like a big party. People spend a fun hour in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the comforts and life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away.

"What we really need to raise awareness about is just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about "Earth Month," without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or factories, grocery stores or hospitals; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

"If there is any symbolic significance to Earth Hour, it is the opposite of its intended meaning. The lights of our modern cities are a symbol of human progress, of what mankind has achieved in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. But during Earth Hour we see the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights going out—of people rejoicing at the sight of skyscrapers going dark. If anything, what Earth Hour represents is the renunciation of civilization."

### ### ###

Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Capitalism and the Environment: The Virtues of 'Exploitation'

Posted by ARI Media at 1:51 PM

What: A talk analyzing the destructive nature of environmentalism--and explaining the constructive role of science, technology, and capitalism in promoting human life and progress. A Q&A will follow.

Who: Richard M. Salsman, public speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute

Where: Rice University, Herzstein Hall, Room 212, Houston, TX

When: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 7:30 pm

Admission is FREE.

Description: Man achieves his survival by using his mind to alter his environment to suit his needs and improve the conditions of his existence. It is this process--expressed in science, technology, and capitalism--that has allowed man to rise from the hunger, drudgery, and misery of primitive existence to the comfort of modern civilization. But it is precisely this process that is under attack by the reactionary "greens"--who want to return man to the pre-industrial era even to the Stone Age.

In this talk, Mr. Salsman does not merely discredit the scientific claims of environmentalism; he demolishes its moral and philosophical base. He demonstrates that: (1) the doctrine that nature has "intrinsic value," i.e., some sort of mystical value entirely apart from its relation to man, is nothing but the desire to destroy human values, (2) the improvement of the environment--for man--can only be provided by laissez-faire capitalism, and (3) that it is the environmentalist movement itself that is today's greatest danger to human health and happiness.

Bio: Richard M. Salsman, CFA, is founder, president and chief market strategist of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., an investment research and forecasting firm based in Chapel Hill, NC. Mr. Salsman is a noted authority on banking and capitalism. He is the author of two books, Gold and Liberty (1995) and Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions (1990). Mr. Salsman's articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Barron's, Forbes, and The National Post ( Canada). Mr. Salsman lectures widely at investment gatherings and at universities such as Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkeley.

For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org

###  ### ###

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Poor Countries Don't Need Climate Change Welfare, They Need Capitalism

Posted by ARI Media at 11:32 AM

Irvine, CA—A major theme of the recent climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, is that wealthy, industrialized nations have an obligation to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Delegates agreed to activate an "adaptation fund" to help undeveloped nations cope with projected threats such as disruptions to agriculture and decreased water availability.

But according to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute: “If environmentalists were really concerned about people in undeveloped countries, they would be helping them to bring about what they really need: industrial development.

“The world’s poorest can barely cope with day-to-day survival, let alone with unproven threats projected to occur over decades. Imagine having no electricity or access to clean drinking water. Imagine having to cook your meals over an open fire, breathing smoke and ash every day. Billions around the world survive at a subsistence level because they lack the elements of industrial capitalism that we in the developed world take for granted: power plants, factories, modern roads and hospitals, cars, refrigerators, and countless time- and labor-saving devices.

"What poor countries need is not climate adaptation welfare doled out by environmentalists who oppose industrial development; what poor countries need is to become rich countries. They need to embrace free markets and private property rights and attract the investment of profit-seeking entrepreneurs to create wealth and drive economic growth.

"Despite the media's constant assertion that global warming science is ‘settled,’" Lockitch said, "it is far from certain that any countries will face catastrophic dangers from climate change. But even if certain dangers do emerge, they pose little threat to wealthy nations with a strongly developed industrial infrastructure. What poor countries need is not global warming guilt money but the rapid adoption of capitalism and industrialization.

"Yet, it is precisely the adoption of industrial capitalism by undeveloped countries that environmentalists reject. Not only do they not want poor countries to become rich, they are trying hard to force rich countries to become poor by capping carbon emissions and abandoning industrialization. Despite their feigned concern for the world’s poor, the measures proposed by environmentalists pose a far greater threat than any possible changes to the earth’s climate."

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, December 21, 2007

Bush Signs Automobile Fatality Act

Posted by ARI Media at 11:31 PM

Irvine, CA—The energy bill that President Bush just signed into law is a significant victory for environmentalists, who have long pushed for such measures as expanded ethanol production. But the centerpiece of the bill—for which environmentalists have been agitating for years—is a major increase in automobile fuel economy standards, the first such increase since 1975.

The law forces auto manufacturers to increase the average mileage of cars, SUVs, and light trucks to 35 mpg by 2020. Currently, the standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and light trucks.

It might seem obviously beneficial to decree that cars must use less fuel. But according to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "The new mileage standards will make cars more expensive and more dangerous and will cause many more traffic fatalities.

"Compelling automakers to achieve higher mileage forces them to compromise automobile safety. To achieve fuel economy, they are forced to make vehicles lighter and smaller. But lighter, smaller vehicles are much more dangerous in an accident. Because the car absorbs less of the crash impact, the passengers absorb it instead.

"The original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, imposed in 1975, have already led to a substantial increase in traffic fatalities—an additional two thousand traffic deaths per year, according to a 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences. With the new standard, manufacturers will be forced to downsize even further all cars, as well as SUVs and light trucks. But these vehicles will still be sharing the road with buses, delivery trucks, and massive commercial trailer trucks. One shudders at the thought of how much greater a risk Americans will face. Nevertheless, environmentalists have continued to fight for higher fuel economy requirements, consistently and cavalierly dismissing the risks and the tragic consequences.

"Despite the drumbeat of constant assertions to the contrary, it is far from a settled scientific fact that we face catastrophic dangers from climate change. Yet, under the guise of protecting us from the alleged dangers of global warming, environmentalists force upon us the very real, provable dangers of increased auto injuries and deaths. Clearly, what they value is something other than human well-being."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The Enemies of Energy

Posted by ARI Media at 1:55 AM

Irvine, CA—King Ranch and the environmentalist coalition Coastal Habitat Alliance are suing Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson in an attempt to stop the creation of a windmill farm along the Gulf Coast in Kenedy County. According to the suit, the wind farm could kill migrating birds and damage the bay.

"From fossil fuels to nuclear energy, environmentalists have consistently opposed the development and use of every practical energy source," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "For decades they have been urging us to find viable sources of 'alternative energy.' Yet now that wind farms have become just such a source, environmentalists object to them as well, making it unmistakably clear that enabling us to efficiently power our industrial society was never their goal.

"All of the wealth Americans enjoy—the computers, the cars, the homes, the food, the medicines that enable us to live longer, healthier, happier lives—depends on large-scale creation of energy. To demand that we scale back on energy production and willingly accept crippling privations in the name of 'conservation,' is to demand that we return to pre-industrial squalor.

"Might that be what environmentalists really want?"

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Environmentalists Are Muscling In on Atlanta's Water Supply

Posted by ARI Media at 11:16 AM

Irvine, CA—With the Southeast suffering a prolonged drought, the city of Atlanta, Georgia, has only about a three month supply of readily accessible water. Nevertheless, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Army Corps of Engineers continues to drain more than a billion gallons a day from Lake Lanier, Atlanta's main water source, to release it downstream for an endangered species of mussel.

"The Endangered Species Act is a danger to the human species," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "People find it hard to believe that environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act could really require the sacrifice of human beings to nature. But that is exactly what they have to mean in practice; they mean that in order to sustain some obscure mussel species, the people in Atlanta must go without water. 

Environmentalists claim that blaming the mussels is unfair. They say it is just a way of diverting attention from the real causes of the water crisis, which, in their view, are a lack of strict water conservation mandates and the 'unbridled development' of metro Atlanta over the last few years."

But, says Lockitch, "this amounts to the bizarre claim that the problem is not a failure to build reservoirs and expand water capacity, but a 'failure' to obstruct economic progress and impose draconian water restrictions on Atlanta. In other words, the environmentalists' view is that Atlantans should sacrifice even more to nature.

"In fact, the opposite is the case. Solving the Southeast's water problems requires the rejection of the Endangered Species Act and environmentalist obstacles to development and growth. Indeed, the real solution is more profit-driven development. What is needed is a water management system that is entirely owned and operated by private individuals and companies, who would be driven by the profit motive to ensure a sufficient water capacity. A wholly private system would protect the rights of all users with a legitimate interest in the Chattahoochee River Basin—including metro Atlanta as well as the energy plants downstream and the Florida seafood industry in the Gulf—with no one requiring that human beings be sacrificed to mussels."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post