We hear a lot about the color green these days.
Green is the color of the newest global religion, the religion of environment before people, whose most recent convocation takes place in Copenhagen, Denmark as I write this post. In that place, this new religion seeks to create an agreement among nations, powerful business interests, and the environmental organizations that seeks to spend as much as 1 percent of the gross world product financing their goal of forcing all of us back to pre-industrial times.
Green is the color of the chemical most efficient in all the world at converting the sun’s power into stored energy, chlorophyll. This chemical’s greatest asset is that it can take carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and sun-light and convert it into carbohydrates that provide food to plants and all animals and humans, directly or by proxy.
Green is the color, at least metaphorically, of the semi-trucks full of money that someone stands to make if someone can figure out how to harness the power of chlorophyll to produce energy and circumvent the plans of the environmental zealots. This result will not be some new scheme to turn plant matter into ethanol or to capture methane but a biotic system that can harvest electricity or a fuel byproduct directly from the function of or symbiosis with that chemical.
As much as the color of the beginning of the 20th century was the black of carbon fuels, so the color of the beginning of the 21st century will be the green of harnessing the life-force of nature itself to our will.
DLH
Look out on the highway and you’ll see the “black fuel” still at work in a large percentile. Governments can’t tax solar and wind power generation and if one plays one’s cards right, you can sell wind power back to the electric company with no profit to the provider. My beef is with the natural gas people. They charge as much to deliver equal to thermal units used in lines already laid.
Where’s T. Boone Pickens at this time, DL? What’s up with the Tesla?
Yeah, the 20th century fuel still dominates because so few have invested in 21st century ideas yet.
Frankly, Pickens and Tesla Motors suffer from the same kind of problem: so few people are willing to try to do anything differently.
If we took the $6 trillion the environmental zealots in Copenhagen want to spend over the next ten years punishing us for using fossil fuels and invested it into developing modern, efficient, clean power systems, in a decade, fossil fuels would no longer be the issue.
What we really need back are the da Vincis and the Franklins and the Edisons who were willing to make these things happen because they believed in them, whatever the cost.
Single men like Edison, Ford, Tesla and Einstein are rarities unless you consider Gates, Penske and/or Tudor even that kind of innovator. Groups of swaying, intellect are more the pick for change. I’d say.
Groups can be the trick, but they’re often triggered by individuals. Without Jefferson, there would have been no Declaration of Independence, etc.
For me, it comes down to an old military axiom: at some point in any battle, the margin of victory or defeat is decided by one man (or woman) who succeeds at his mission over his enemy.
In the end, all human actions are the results of individuals, working independently or in concert. Without the individual, there can be no group, and I believe that it is often the force of will of individuals that direct the group toward their goals.