Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable
by Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinneyTHE BIG problem with renewable energy is that it just doesn’t renew itself. The sun does not shine enough and the wind doesn’t blow enough to power the towns, cities, factories, hospitals and schools that make our lives so livable.
No environmentalist would ever allow their child to be treated in a hospital fully powered by “renewables”. They would not take the risk that the wind might stop whilst their baby was on the operating table. They would insist that the hospital and the life support systems had a fossil fuel powered back-up.
And so it is with “sustainable development”. It just isn’t sustainable. At least it does not sustain a lifestyle that those who promote it would consider acceptable for themselves. But of course that is the key. Renewable energy and sustainable development are for “other people”.
Even though environmentalists come from societies and very often families that became rich because of their use of non-renewable energy and unsustainable development they will not allow these opportunities to be extended to the poor in the developing world.
Environmentalists come from wealthy societies and families who cut down forests and burned coal and oil to make their families and societies healthy and prosperous. But, nowadays, for the poor in Africa and Asia and even middle America their path out of poverty must be “sustainable.” No fossil fuels or factories for them. But what this really means is sustainable poverty. It is a system that condemns people to a lifetime of drudgery and subsistence farming because modernity and industrialisation is “unsustainable.”
Which brings me to Bono, the lead singer of rock band U2 and more lately a campaigner for sustainable development in Africa, Asia and south America. In 2005 Bono and his wife Ali Hewson set up Edun a clothing range that was going to prove there is a different way to end poverty. It was going to be a non-corporate and of course “sustainable”.
At he time MSNBC said it would be “clothing with a conscience”. Vogue magazine said Edun was going to “flip capitalism on its head”.
But now it seems that Bono has now discovered that big companies with their big carbon footprints are useful if you want to keep paying the wages and produce the goods and sell them. Last week the rock star announced he has sold out to LVMH, the worlds largest luxury goods company. Announcing the deal Bono all but admitted that his touchy feely version of capitalism and development just didn’t work. Selling out to LVMH was a great deal, said Bono, and would “bring greater and longer-term stability to our manufacturers and the communities they support”.
In other words my Clooneyesc view of business is plain wrong and I now have to admit that I can’t pay the workers salaries without a proper business running the company. They, with their international marketing skills and economies of scale will make the business truly sustainable – that is – they will ensure that the workers have work and a salary every week and for years to come.
It is an admission that capitalism works and is the only way to ensure a better future for some of the world’s poorest people. And now Bono’s clothes with a conscience will be marketed and sold by a company that also sells Louis Vuitton, Donna Karan and Givenchy. LVMH’s also make and sell the delightfully unsustainable Moët & Chandon, Dom Pérignon and Veuve Clicquot. It also makes and sells parfum Christian Dior and Givenchy and luxury jewellery and watches such as TAG Heurer, Christian Dior and De Beers Diamond Jewellers.
Neither side felt it necessary to say how much Bono got for selling half the company to LVMH. Edun has, in the past, made much of the company’s transparency. However it seems that the transparency only extends to poking our noses into what the workers earn. Bono and his wife are exempt from such questions. But good luck to them. It is really not important to know how much money they have.
But it is important for them to stop keeping people in poverty in the name of sustainability. We used our resources – we burned coal and oil and chopped down our forests. We drove our cars and flew our planes. We have used capitalism to conquer disease and poverty and as a consequence our children are the best-educated and healthiest in history.
But it seems that now some of these children want to stop the poorest on the planet from having what we have. Bono loves sustainable development but only for other people. U2’s latest album was recorded in separate sessions in France, the UK, Morocco, the US and Dublin. The band is now going on a worldwide tour to promote it.
This is not “sustainable” but it is necessary to keep people in work and to keep Bono’s bank balance healthy. And this is a good thing. U2 will provide employment for hundreds if not thousands through selling the album and going on tour. But it is being done the old fashioned way – through unsustainable but wealth creating capitalism.
If it is good enough for Bono and his band of Irish multi-millionaires then it should be good enough for the poorest on the planet.
Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney are the directors and producers of “Not Evil Just Wrong,” a documentary which looks at the true cost of Global Warming hysteria. noteviljustwrong.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
107 Comments
Bono is well meaning , but Africa needs a revolution. Corrupt government and antiquated hatereds are holding the continent back. We continue to pour billions of dollars in to the great money pit that is Africa to no avail. The people themselves must lift themselves up and demand change or none will occur.
Well put! Do as I say, not as I do. I don’t want to scream hypocrisy as this would impugn Bono’s motives, he seems to care. But, like most entertainers his guilt along with his god complex are massive. You want to save the world inject capitalism, you want to subject whole cultures to poverty inject socialism.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I know he means well but anytime we in the developed world interfere we usually do as much or more harm than good. That is why it usually has to be a disastor of epic proportions before most people will get involved. People understand this on a basic almost subliminal level, but do-gooders throughout history keep having to re-learn lessons that a brief study of history would make evident. It is not the hearts of these celebrties that I question it is thier intellect.
In the name of "sustainability", those who wear their compassion on their sleeves sanction the deaths of tens of millions due to diseases and living conditions which could be alleviated by allowing their societies follow the developmental template of western developed nations.
Ironically, these are the same liberals who falsely accuse capitalists of stealing from the poor.
i hate to feel schadenfreude here, but it is entertaining.
I don't give a rip about designer labels and his "nudE" label is no different. I won't buy this brand or any of the others mentioned. I just don't care.
Some have said that Bono is not a hypocrite for his huge polluting lifestyle because he has good intentions. I say bollocks. These celebrities that champion these causes by doing the opposite of what the cause is, make me sick. But it is ok because their hearts are in the right place and their activism off sets the damage they other wise do.
In the case of Bono the emperor truly is nude and without clothes.
Would not a revolution be wonderful!
Unfortunately, Bono, Geffen, Clooney, WInfrey and all the other fabulously beautiful, people as well as the fabulously beautiful Live Aid audiences are funding the dictators every time one of those Live Aid concerts throws a party or when Oprah opens her mouth!
SO Bono,Geffen, Oprah and al the fabulously beautiful and their entertainment addicts are funding the tyrants while the on the cover of the Rolling Stone these fine 'humanitarians' are portrayed as cool.
Cool is creepy and so is American Idol pop culture.
This has always been true for the left — do as I say, not as I do.
They want higher taxes, but not on themselves. They want the government to control business, but stay out of theirs. They want the government to censor speech, but not their own. They want development stopped, don't want interference with their own lifestyles. And on and on.
The left knows what's good for everybody else.
So that's why my LVMH stock shares started going up all of a sudden! Thank you Bono! Thank you thank you thank you!
The road to hell is red, with the blood of the intended recipients of good deeds.
Because they "already got theirs"
How did they distribute their goods, by donkey or camel? I went to their website and the cheapest thing there was a $70 t-shirt. I don't think it would take a genius to realize this business model was a bit flawed.
Dan, I see you out ran DHS! Good for you.
On your point, ah yep. They wouldn't want their desire to run other people's lives to interfere with their own lives would they?
Bono is like most celebrities- guilty of his huge financial success. Virtually all artists have little or no experience in business, or finance. So, given the huge windfall of cash for writing a song, or remembering their lines and hitting their marks (Clooney, Penn, et. al.) this lot feels, justifiably, indebted.
It's just the shallow nature of the thought and committment that we find annoying. Most artists mouth and act the trendy line and do little. Bono, Sarandon and Clooney at least walk the walk…
Doesn't make them right…
Kudos to Bono for admitting he was wrong (even if not directly – actions speak louder than words) and getting out of the foolish enterprise. That's a step ahead of others for sure. Too bad other celebrity crusaders don't have this ability to admit (by words or at least actions) they are wrong and stop doing the foolish things they do.
Well said. That continent needs a reboot…..
But as long as celebrities can make themselves feel relevant by sending money and guilting others into sending money, Africa is doomed to remain in this cycle of corruption and futility.
I have no interest in defense of Bono, but I hate to see such blatant bias and lack of logic. When one company buys another, or part of another as in this case, it is because it is a successful company making a profit in the spirit of capitalism. I don't think that Bono's original claim was to sell and distribute these products sustainably, but to manufacture them sustainably (i.e., organic cotton) and to pay the laborers a fair wage so they can sustain their lives. If you truly want to see these populations prosper, you have to be willing to pay them so they can sustain their own lives without the need for 'bail outs' from other countries and charity. Those bail outs support the dictators and make their populations more dependent. You may not want to buy a $70 T-shirt but someone is buying them and Bono apparently made a profit from his original investment. It isn't your business what he made as it isn't your business what any other capitalist entrepreneur made. If you want to attack hypocrisy, focus on Al Gore who has made millions and received a Nobel Prize based on fear mongering and lies.
The problem is that no one wants to talk about what really needs to happen in Africa. DrPain63 hit on it above, and it's a real revolution. The corruption and exploitation of Africans upon Africans needs to stop. Period.
I know it's trendy to blame rich Europeans and Americans and diamond companies for the misery a lot of Africans are subjected to, but none of that would be happening without the complicity of their fellow Africans. Everyone knows who the perpetrators are, no one wants to do anything real about it. "I'll just send a check…." is the extent of involvement.
It's harsh and it's raw, but heads need to roll over there.
Al Gore is the walking personification of do as I say not as I do. I wonder how much he's making from his carbon offset company and how much he stands to make if cap and trade actually happens…..
Kim DuToit (an actual African) wrote an excellent piece years ago on the "solution" to the problems in Africa titled Let Africa Sink. Its a sobering read.
But the reality is that The West™ is not going to solve Africa's problems and frankly most of the liberals trying to help Africa with foolishness like sustainability and other short sighted environmentalist and collectivist nonsense are just making the situation worse.
Frankly, I believe that unlike many of the cynical, self serving celebs (*cough* Madonna *cough*) Bono really does believe he can help and really truly wants to make a positive impact on Africa.
Maybe this whole Edun thing will push him one step closer to the realization that the problem in Africa (and the world in general) is not an unequal distribution of wealth, but an unequal distribution of FREE MARKET CAPITALISM (and thus LIBERTY).
If he plays his cards right, one day Mr. Bono may wake up a Free Market Libertarian and THEN he'll be able to help the dark continent.
If anyone here knows the guy, could you slip him copies of the following books:
Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom
Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics
Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Friedrich von Hayek's The Road to Surfdom
and W. Cleon Skousen's The 5000 Year Leap
Maybe we can get his head right.
Good to see you on Big Hollywood. Good luck getting your film out. I encourage everyone to see "Not Evil, Just Wrong". Keep up the good work.
So true. Algore has one of the most environmentally unfriendly homes known to man. He also flies all over the world, wasting tons of fossil fuels and destroying our atmosphere, when he could just as simply do a teleconference. But hey, "I'm Algore, I'm too important to do as I want the rest of you to do."
I'll never forget the Thorazine stare he gave Sen. Inhofe when asked if he pledged to cease his own gluttonous energy consumption. The truly sad thing about that moment, even though Gore refused to make the pledge, he STILL got Hollywood behind him.
In the face of this disgustingly blatant show of a complete lack of common decency, celebrities continue to flock to his banner.
Someone above questioned celebrity intelect. I question the mental wards that saw fit to release them into the public…..
have you heard of the 'Conflict Neutral" Daiamonds scam?
No I haven't, do tell….
Scam? Are you telling me that unverifiable self-certification does not work? You are far too cynical friend.
I didn't see that, but if you noticed an unusually emotional expression on Algore's face, it must have been truly amazing.
That's like saying you saw something really black in the middle of outer space. OR (for the happy people among us) that's like saying you saw something really cute hidden in a field of puppies.
Sarcasm noted….
Man I wish Sen. Inhofe was one of my senators the dude talks straight, truth to stupidity aka. Algore.
I wasn't going to steal Buckwheat's thunder, but since he hasn't come back…
A while back, the diamond industry got bad press when people started accusing them of supporting African warlords. By buying diamonds from these warlords, the diamond companies were handing over cash which allowed them to buy weapons. This allowed the warlords to continue their wars (and seize more diamond producing land). Moreover, they were using child labor and often forced labor to get the diamonds.
This got people upset, and these diamonds became known as "Conflict Diamonds."
To "fix" this problem, the big diamond producers started selling diamonds that they would certify as having not been obtained from these warlords, i.e. from South Africa or Russia for example. The problem was that there was no way to verify where the producers really got the diamonds, and this "conflict free" or "conflict neutral" label was entirely self-certified. Needless to say, evidence has since come out that many of the certified diamonds are in fact "conflict diamonds" and that little has changed except the PR.
When Google got venture funding, the VCs didn't buy their stake from Larry and Sergei. More shares were simply created, which VCs bought and owned. When the company IPO'd, people who bought the stock weren't buying it from Larry, Sergei, and the VCs, they were buying newly issued shares, so again, nobody cashed out. If you know anything about funding, you'll know that this is the way things work in an overwhelming majority of investments. Investors buy newly created shares, not "secondary shares" as they're called, which means the original owners do not cash out. It's quite an assumption to believe this deal was any different.
When Google got venture funding, the VCs didn't buy their stake from Larry and Sergei. More shares were simply created, which VCs bought and owned. When the company IPO'd, people who bought the stock weren't buying it from Larry, Sergei, and the VCs, they were buying newly issued shares, so again, nobody cashed out. If you know anything about funding, you'll know that this is the way things work in an overwhelming majority of investments. Investors buy newly created shares, not "secondary shares" as they're called, which means the original owners do not cash out. It's quite an assumption to believe this deal was any different.
I think Jeffrey Immelt said it best this morning standing in front of the White House after the economic summit (this is not an exact quote):
Immelt: This is about who is going to control the next generations of power.
Guess what he wants to do? Green Energy has nothing to do with carbon foot print it is all about the dollar and who is going to control it.
I am sure your comments are "well intended" but they are doing your audience more harm than good.
Seriously — your logic defeats itself.
Sure, many well-intended works do more harm than good but the "go stick you head in the sand" world-view is both immature… and disingenously hypocritical.
I don't think he can read or sing very well anymore.He breathes really heavily on his recent recordings and has become quite a boor intellectually. He was a better artist when he stuck with his born again schtick in the 80's.
I've learned that the rich live by the mantra that rules only apply to the little people.
And another thing, his poem about Elvis really sucked.
Got it. Thanks.
That was what the movie “Blood Diamond” was supposedly about, I’ve never seen it myself, DiCaprio is on our boycott list.
That's a valid point, I did see a twinge of emotion on his face though. It said "I can't believe they're buying this load of crap! I'm gonna be RICH!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!"
He's definitely a rare one….
Stan, I like you more and more each day!
the other point is that if you buy a diamond with a "Conflict Neutral" certification, the extra $ goes to relief agancies that can provide shelter and food etc. to those that do get their arms chopped off.
You see you can still buy conflict diamonds but your extra money can provide assistance to those that are injured, and can asuage your guilt. Everybody wins!!
A good analysis of the "elephant and the mouse" syndrome is nicely presented in the 2006
book by Dr. William Easterly. Doc Easterly was once a pie-eyed-do-gooder working, so he thought, to alleviate the suffering in the world. But after a 16 year career with the World Bank…well read the book. He presents the problems and the solutions.
ww.amazon.com/White-Mans-Burden-Efforts-Little/dp/1594200378
Give a man a fish…
or
Hire a man to fish …
or
Help a man start his own fishing operation…
Gee – I wonder if a song entitled "A Tribute to Friedrich Hayek" will make it into the next U2 collection? It's nice that Bono now realizes that capitalism has an upside but what about the incredible damage he has already done among those who only get their information from popular culture? (Remember – This is one of "The Most Influential Men in the World.")
Thank you Andrew! To be truthful my wife was the one that started boycotts years ago in my family, and we have gone from (Hollywood are you listening) a movie a week to 4 or 5 movies a year.
me too
I never got DiCaprio's appeal.
Him and a few others for that matter.
I spent 2000-2003 getting a second degree in architecture. And SD was preached as often and as fervently as a sermon on damnation in a fundamentalist church. I didn't much agree with a lot of what they were throwing at us. But I was totally convinced of SD's bulls**t quotient when they started talking about how using stone in building design was "sustainably unsound". Stone? Small shards of the rock we live on? Unsustainable? Remember the old quote "Man fears time, Time fears the pyramids." And what are they made of papier-mache? And near as I can tell, we still have more rocks than people, and brains too. More here
http://shermansmarch.blogspot.com
Africa will never be anything more than a third or fourth world, 12th century hell hole until they abandon two things:
Tribalism.
Islam.
What I find frustrating is that they never seem to realize that they gained this huge financial success that they feel so guilty about through accessing the free market and capitalizing on the works of their own mind and hand. If they truly want to help the poor, they need to fight to get government the hell out of their way.
This is what frustrates me about leftist artists in general … people who's entire life and livelihood is dependent on liberty and individualism, yet they all hate capitalism and embrace collectivism.
Sadly, Hollywood doesn't listen. They don't care. They listen to their magic focus groups and no one else. Oh well, maybe someday?
Inch by inch everything’s a cinch. Keep our money in our pockets more and more and they’ll change. They care more about the sheen on their Bentley’s than the continent of Africa.
Touche' Africa is a lost continent because of Islam and Tribalism, indeed.
No, I question their heart as well. I sincerely believe it isn't all about have a good heart but what they perceive to be good public relations. They like to be seen as doing something that they deem to be righteous. Otherwise, we might have celebrities talk more about introducing capitalism or better yet investing in a business that not only serves the people but provides jobs all while producing a profit enabling it to grow and expand. But no! They push the socialist agenda which in their eyes is the more righteous path, even if the opposite is true.
Yeah, I get the feeling that he and Algore don’t do lunch, ha.
You clearly have no clue at all. The problems in Africa are solely one of corruption at all levels of government. As soon as we provide money, food, or drugs, the money is deposited in a Swiss bank account, and the food and drugs are stolen at gunpoint to be sold on the black market.
It has been said it is best to teach a man to fish than to provide him with fish. But this has to be enforced on the governmental level most of all. In order to govern, a leader must have the heart of the people to support business that will grow and prosper free of government influence and extortion.
or the USA for that matter….
Matt Damon is another one. I'll be honest though, if these guys weren't such loud mouthed left-wing nutbags I might like their films more. But I get distracted trying to watch them. I keep hearing an annoying screech instead of dialogue.
Is this where we get to roll our eyes and say "duhhh" to another "green" fairy tale?
I think some of those are available as audio books (and Friedman's ideas are available as a PBS series on DVD).
Oh indeed, their hatred of America knows no bounds.
Maaaat… Daaaamon, overrated tool.
Bono woke up and experienced what happens when you ignore reality and the principles of capitalism and free-market economics that operate universally.
As I wrote in my "A Primer on Capitalism" article earlier this year:
All societies, in order to prosper, grow, and take care of its citizens must create new value to sustain its economy and support an expanding population. Common sense and experience dictate that there are only three (3) possible ways for anyone in life to have, create, or obtain value (monetary or economic) or acquire any assets (property) to be able to live or sustain oneself or one’s family:
(1) You ethically earn it by working and providing value to your employer, investing in other people’s ventures, risking it in a new business to provide new value to others via a service or product, or by inventing, creating, or discovering something new and original, that is useful (device, process, cure) or pleasing (literature, music, art) to others. This is known as ethical capitalism, which I’ll simply call “capitalism” going forward.
(2) You appropriate it from others, or someone else (person, institution, or government) appropriates it on your behalf. Communism, socialism, the US government (federal, state, and local), and criminals practice this approach. This choice is always coercive, but legal in some cases (taxes) and illegal in others (criminality).
(3) Someone voluntarily gives it to you, through a gift, a will, a trust, or a charity donation. Note however, that in order for someone (individual, government, church, institution, etc.) to have any value (money or assets) to give, they must first attain it by choice #1 or #2 above. No other source for the donation exists.
Inherent in option #1 is also the absolute right of individuals and organizations to have and own property (money, assets, etc.) that is exclusively theirs and the right to dispose of such property as they see fit without interference from anyone else.
The only fair, ethical, and truly voluntary model of creating and obtaining value, based fully on freedom and the greatest respect for the individual, is option #1. Choice #3 is a close second, but it still depends on first having acquired value ethically via option #1.
http://chrisbanescu.com/blog/2009/01/22/a-primer-...
"Edun" is "nude" backwards. How precious. I suppose then that Bono's business philosophy is "msilatipac."
as someone once observed: foreign aid is the process of transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries…
The duplicitous nature of U2 is what is the issue. And their irksome superior than thou attitude is wearing REAL thin!
If poverty is so great then all the members of U2 and their families should do it; or shut up about it and let people live their lives as it is best for their lives and their families.
the green building movement has become a self-parody. i recently read an article (maybe in FHB?) that was rating several homes on their level of 'green-ness' (or whatever BS term is being used these days). they actually granted a point to one home that had an entranceway with a welcome mat- because that would reduce toxins and heavy metals from being tracked into the home on the soles of their shoes. i wish i was making this up…
or in the Kennedy's case- #1 (and some #2), then #3, #3, #3
Bad link report, the site screwed it up again. That essay is here. Good reading.
PS: Site says Kim has retired from blogging, site is not being maintained. Read it while you can.
I could see your point if it wasn't for the fact that many of the left leaning doo-gooders are actually making things WORSE there.
• They ban DDT and millions die of Malaria (instead of dozens).
• They insist that no new coal fired or nuclear power plants are built there, no lets force 3rd worlders to use wind and solar that produce significantly less power per dollar.
• No genetically modified plants allowed either (even though the non modified don't grow near as well) … slap a fear mongering term like "Frankenfood" on it and we forget that 99% of the vegetables and fruits we consume have been "genetically modified" over years of selective breeding.
• The constant disarming of "non government entities" as part of the lefts constant quest for "peace" means the masses are easy targets for strongmen (you can conquer a large African village with a handful of men armed with AKs. Try pulling that on a small town in say, Texas, and your warlord will have to hire more mercs to replace his dead ones).
• Can't let the Christian missionaries get away with teaching those people to "keep it in their pants" … which is the one sure fire way to avoid getting AIDS.
• Keep the people there fighting against the evil capitalists so Africans are forced to live under Tribal strongmen or Communist/Socialist dictators.
Please don't suggest a revolution in Africa. Revolutions are usually marxist over there and don't help much.
"The sun does not shine enough and the wind doesn’t blow enough to power the towns, cities, factories, hospitals and schools that make our lives so livable."
Actually, the sun does shine enough, and enough of that light hits the earth to power all of those things. Just not with today's energy harnessing capabilities.
At least Africa could have a chance with solar energy. Earlier in the year when it was all the rage in the news, the one local weekend weatherperson made a point of putting up a map of the US, then she explained why Pennsylvania is not good for solar since we get so few clear days of sunshine. Ah, how I love that station!
We are however considered one of the top spots in the nation for wind power. And known for wild birds, migrating flocks… You ought to see the ruckus when companies want to install the big turbines anywhere near residential areas. Oh no, there go the property values! Even the small backyard ones can be a hassle.
Then why is there such a great push right now to adopt technology that's not up to the task? Answer one is it's for political power, forcing control over existing power sources which will be entrenched by the alternatives' inadequacy. Answer two is it's for financial gain, the systems are expensive now which makes for higher profits as well as the monies generated from the "carbon trading" schemes. If they'd wait until technology caught up and mass production made the systems so cheap just about any homeowner could be off the grid and self-sufficient for a few thousand bucks, the "environmentalist" influence would be worth less than a cup of coffee.
What certainly seems the most efficient way of harnessing solar power is one of the oldest. Make farmland, grow hay, then use it for fuel, we can easily form it into pellets for heating and electricity generating. Plants are far more efficient solar converters than we can hope to be, for centuries to come. But this goes against environmentalist sensibilities as it involves (gasp!) burning something, let alone the "massive environmental damage" caused by merely having farmland without mentioning the converting of cute but unneeded forest into something usable. Meanwhile, here in reality, that's about as green as it gets. And it'll be pretty dang cheap to do as well.
it is the contrarian in all artists; they process information differently than most others… logic is usually absent- everything keys off of emotional issues. Combine that with someone who has never held gainful employ, and voila' you have Bono…
Bono’s pro-Gore essays suggest he is just another tool. The green movement has killed millions and millions, but he remains silent. I guess though if you are a make-poverty-history star with big bank accounts in Holland to avoid taxes in Ireland, all truth is subjective unless it hurts you.
[...] Helping Design US Cap & Trade Program Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
[...] Consequences of Global Warming Hysteria Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Founding Bloggers: You Have To Burn Fuel To Save Fuel – Obama Does His Part For Earth Day Pirates! [...]
Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/phelim-mcaleer/2009/...
[...] Excellent article on ignorant, left-wing celebrities endorsing doomed, unsustainable “green” power sources for use in poor countries; also eye-opening for Bono that it’s that eveil capitalism, not socialism, that works when paying people to run his company: Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t … [...]
Shooting a movie on film is an incredibly bad for the environment… photochemical processes, silver halide, wasteful union labor.
If more filmmakers shot on digital video, it'd save a lot of polar bears.
Even then, for ever dollar you spent on coal or diesel powered electricity production you get more electricity than $50 spent on solar or wind.
We're talking about seriously dirt poor people here … environmentalists act like the choice Africans have is between "going green" or using "old dirty power" but the reality is the choice is between using "old dirty power" and joining the early 20th century or not accessing power at all and remaining stuck in the 12th century where life is hard, miserable and short.
Availability of energy sources is a key issue, and solar and wind are freely available. Expense is something else. If you go with a commercial-made system, yeah it's pricey, the theoretical return on your money just isn't there. But do a search for "homemade solar panel" and you'll find dirt-cheap DIY. With some skills you can slap together a system with a storage battery that can power a computer for perhaps $150, with much scrounging and more skills you might break a twenty. Besides the expected manufacturing costs like labor, there's a ton of regulations on home systems as well as technical requirements for our modern gadgets. If you want to do as the green people promote and sell to the power company, you'll blow a few thousand minimum just for the device that puts out a perfect 60 Hertz current exactly matching what's in the power line. If you just want something isolated from the rest of the house circuits to run your ceiling lights then things cheapen considerably. Homebrew solar heating can also be low cost and effective. However if I was building a new home I'd likely try a Passive House that doesn't need conventional heating. To heck with the treehugger nonsense, they're just cheaper to own.
Right now, hard as it is to admit, we approach the issue the wrong way with the wrong ideas. For much of Africa they don't need massive spending for infrastructure like power generation and distribution. Candles are about as high-tech as it gets when night falls, we could do a world of good distributing a bulk shipment of those solar LED garden lights, they can take them indoors at sunset or even carry them around. For now just pulling them into the 19th century is a significant improvement, enough power to run one or two devices would be transformative. Why talk of power lines and generators, what they need is something they can lug around with foldable panels and one or two outlets, $50 or so in bulk from Taiwan. Even if the sun hides for a few days and they're out of power, it's still a tremendous improvement.
We've dropped many billions over there in food and medical aid, trying to combat crushing despair by providing longer and healthier lives, in abject poverty. For relatively few millions we can provide tangible proof their lives have improved, even if it's in ways that seem small to us. And getting them to accept that things can improve is a step towards motivating them to improve their own lives, communities, and countries. Until we create a desire for change from within, everything we do there is meaningless.
Polar bears are among the most frightening creatures on Earth that can kill you with a single swipe. Even the most nut-job snail darter-kissing environ-mental documentary crews go to their habitat with nothing less than a trained guide with a large-bore rifle, preferably two.
Bring on the Technicolor!
There is no renewable energy. The term itself is part of the Big Green Lie. Put up an ugly, bird-killing wind turbine and somewhere behind it there is no wind where there would have been. Solar rays, whether they hit the ground or a big landscape-consuming solar panel "farm", or are transformed into the inefficient former-food that makes ethanol, it's gone and doesn't cycle back to the sun on a cosmic ski lift for renewal. You might be able to save the energy in poisonous heavy metal intensive batteries, but it will never renew.
Someday someone will be able to show that more harm was done to the environment by these solutions than by nuclear and fossil fuel combined.
What was that ? Why do they call it fossil fuel? It's organic you say? Made up of old dead plant and animals? Well then maybe it should be brought up from underground to where he carbons contribute to the surface biomes where they once were?
Free the Oil!
ok you seem to know your stuff. Can you talk to me about wave generated power?
Your $150 home made solar panels don't power an entire house, or more importantly reliably power an entire medical clinic. Running a computer is not as important as running an X-ray machine, a Sonogram machine and an Autoclave. Or for the home a refrigerator (I contend refrigeration is one of the single most important technological advances in human history).
As for solar heat and a "Passive House", for most of Africa, the problem isn't home heating, its home cooling.
A diesel generator in a trailer is going to be significantly more useful to your average African village than all the "green" technology in the world. Thing is, the left only wants to fund the "green" stuff. More to the point they go out of their way to discourage the stuff that actually works because its not "green".
But that's just details, you hit the nail on the head with; Until we create a desire for change from within, everything we do there is meaningless.
So we're back to my other post … Africa won't improve until they dump Tribalism and Islam.
Please, I'm just a handy guy who prefers to know how to fix and perhaps make his own stuff, followed my father that way, although I have a tendency to be long on learning and short on experience. Consider me another type of survivalist.
Funny thing is, there are lots of us out there, the pioneer spirit is alive and well, there are online communities for sharing knowledge and stoking innovation that are a vast improvement from when the Foxfire books tried to gather the "vanishing old knowledge." And generally I have found it is rooted not in treehugger nonsense but in capitalism; saving money, not being tied to a supplier, even coming up with ideas that perhaps could be sold. Gives me hope for this country.
Wave generated power is about what you should expect. Great potential, high investment cost, not quite there for stand-alone capitalism. But it's promising. This site from Scotland gives you the gist of it, an "emerging technology" company doing demonstration projects. I love how they stick to the bare minimum of "green" verbiage. Research Papers (toolbar) -> "Realities of Wave Technology" seems pretty upright and truthful. Of course, facing another modern reality, these are fixed installations which could conceivably have zero on-site staff that are attached to a power grid, thus juicy terrorism targets yielding relatively low outrage.
However, for energy we can exploit now there's methane production, with sources varying from landfills to what's flushed down the toilet. Although it does involve (gasp!) burning, you can hold off the greenies since the methane that's wasted now is supposedly 20 times worse for global warming than CO2, and it's very renewable. Expect a future where we separate our trash into soft (degradable) and hard.
You guys are Morons…have you even set foot in an African country?…yes there are countries in Africa……Africa is a continent and actually Christianity is one of the main religions in most southern African countries
You show complete ignorance on this issue and no understanding of many African cultures and the situation of poverty and disease on the continet. I bet you have never set foot on the continent. The best way to prevent malaria…netting not DDT-heck of a lot cheaper too. Genetically modified crops imported have wiped out crops and people starve….
"Keeping it in their pants" is disrespectful, rude and once again demosntrating your ignorance. Teaching abstinence only is demonstrating ognorance of culture. The best way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is dealing with the realities of theri culture and working within their cultural norms. If you preach your western ideas, you will get no where and wast time and money.
ok thanks for the information
my reply notification seems not to work
environmental damage is an externality of fossil fuel usage. Carbon trading simply unhides the hidden costs. When fuel usage produces pollution, someone pays to clean it up whether or not there are carbon units. The carbon unit just makes it possible to bundle that cleanup cost with the fuel that causes the pollution instead of spreading it out and forcing government to do it. The essence of capitalism is efficient allocation of capital resources. Forcing everyone to pay for pollution cleanup in the form of taxes is an enormous market inefficiency. Carbon trading should reduce environmental regulation because it will be in every businesses best interest to reduce their production inefficiencies that result in costly pollution cleanup. Basically, everybody wins. Well, everybody except the shareholders and consumers of products that are currently externalizing the pollution cleanup of their products to all taxpayers.
See, you have that mindset problem. They need some modern equipment, not the whole hog. A doctor doing surgery at a bush clinic would be happy with a reliable clean and bright light source, you can do that with solar charged LED systems. A diesel generator sounds nice, but fuel is expensive and roads are lacking, having to continually carry fuel in from faraway cities gets old fast. Even if you can get that trailer there, remember the corruption and theft, that generator is a large and rather valuable target.
Your "autoclave" can be a solar-based oven, using multiple containers for batch processing which you can leave sealed until the instruments are needed. A sonogram machine will run nicely with a solar-charged battery powering an inverter. Oh, shocking revelation time, the earliest portable X-ray equipment used a simple lump of radioactive material, the difference between X-rays and gamma rays is now a technical classification based on whether the radiation comes from electrons or a nucleus. The anti-nuke ninnies don't want to talk about it, the image quality ain't cutting edge, but the quantities used are small, they're still used industrially, and it beats nothing with no electricity required.
You can also do refrigeration with heat, when used to generate mechanical action that drives a compressor. For decades they've sold RV fridges that run on propane. And sunlight can make heat. It also helps to re-evaluate the paradigm. A largish solar-powered machine that makes ice blocks would be appreciated, even an old-fashioned (to us) ice box would be a huge improvement. Again, no electricity required, simple mechanical controls would suffice.
As to tribalism and Islam… There's a depressing zero-sum mindset involved, if one gains then another loses. It's the basis of socialistic thought, coupled with thinking some have more than enough, or what's worse, that some have had enough long enough. With tribalism it's small scale, the Islamics are larger scale takers. The actual religion is simply far less into non-denominational sharing than, say, Christians, so they keep more resources to themselves, with the pretense the beliefs of those in power will lead to a more equitable sharing than they normally expect.
Solar devices are the best fit for the conditions, long lasting, and without the need for constant and expensive resupplying they provide a measure of independence. Their greatest value comes from what is done with what they produce, those with skills can create greater value, then capitalism advances. It stops being a zero-sum game. The benefits of tribalism fall apart. You could steal them, but for the most part you also need the devices they power and the skills to use them so gathering up the solar devices yields no great benefit, more than a few has no purpose. If one group advances so much another gets jealous, it'll be pointed out it's not that hard to do the same. Besides, needless to say, those who've seen great improvements will want to protect what they've earned, more so than they currently do their own lives once they know improvements are possible. Banditry will become far less profitable. Sure, there'll be a UN-irritating increase in the gun trade, now that the more common people can afford them, but, oh well, becoming a "civilized" country usually ain't pretty or civil.
Tribes get replaced with economic-based trading groups, Islam as a tool of "economic justice" loses relevance, Africa starts climbing out of the hole. Worth a shot to try it. I agree the technology currently makes no sense over here, we have cheaper and better long-established sources. But over there where they have practically nothing to absolutely nothing, well, just because something's "green" doesn't make it wrong.
A great many advanced words to dress up sheer nonsense. Our air and water quality is the best it's been in decades. EPA rules for industry are very strict. As heard from my father who worked at a plant that used water in processing, their discharge water had higher standards than the incoming water. They also had to worry about stack emissions. They installed a very expensive scrubber system, and not seven years later they had to install a different one to meet stricter regulations. Same for power plants as well.
Our vehicles have far less tailpipe emissions as efficiency increases, with stringent environmental regulations so tight they're actually decreasing mileage. Even home heating has improved, as normal economic factors mandate getting the most heat possible from fuel.
So, what truly significant pollution can you be talking about? The only thing that possibly makes sense is if you're referring to carbon dioxide. Last I checked, no massive government cleanup of CO2 was ongoing nor warranted. We use environmental methods for cleanup, namely green organic things that collectively are called vegetation or flora. And no… I do not see a great expenditure of taxes to provide plants dedicated to cleaning up carbon dioxide "pollution."
So, I do not see great environmental damage from fossil fuel use, nor expensive government cleanups related to what doesn't exist. And the monies generated by carbon trading schemes are used for social spending at home when done within a governmental body (like the EU) or social spending on other governments when done internationally (supplying foreign aid by buying unused carbon credits). No pollution cleanup, no costs, no funds from carbon trading being spent on what doesn't exist. No substance to your post.
I wouldn't dare set foot in an African country, I'd get deferred from the blood donor rolls for maybe a year, or kicked off for life.
Christianity is there, sometimes it gets jumbled together with tribal religions. I know Christians are there because the news reports how the intolerant Muslims keep killing them off. They're also not known for kindness towards Jews and practitioners of native religions.
Tribalism is normally an unspoken racism, lighter skinned against darker, different facial features, etc. Since it's PC to lump them all together as "Africans," even when referring to "African-Americans," liberals don't like to talk about it and imagine them all singing Kumbaya before having a group hug.
With the intolerances of tribalism and Islam shaping the general world view of Africa, don't expect overwhelming international support while they still hold sway, nor any major improvements on the continent. They can't hardly help themselves until they start getting past them.
The best way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is dealing with the realities of theri culture and working within their cultural norms.
So far I have heard repeatedly, in all forms of media from TV to the internet to magazines, from sources going from the BBC to PBS to ABC, that it's spread by prostitution and males don't want to wear condoms. Please Explain How We Can Stop The Spread Of HIV By Working With "Cultural Norms" Like That!
You show complete ignorance on this issue and no understanding of many African cultures and the situation of poverty and disease on the continet. I bet you have never set foot on the continent. The best way to prevent malaria…netting not DDT-heck of a lot cheaper too. Genetically modified crops imported have wiped out crops and people starve….
If you have never set foot in an African country then your assumptions are based on no experience, nor real facts. Your like an armchair quarterback. International organizations have been pouring money into African countries for decades to meet their own agendas, hence the failures.
So you’re the one in charge of Africa, you’ve done a real fine job.
Why does he keep saying "set foot in an African country?" If I had touched soil while changing flights would I be an expert? I've learned about Africa like 99% plus of liberals have, news reports, PBS, National Geographic etc, plus other publications, and also writings by hunters and professional guides who've lived and/or visited frequently there, and I have an aunt who does an annual missionary stint in Liberia.
Guess that means 99% plus of liberals who think we must do something over there are completely ignorant of the issues and know nothing of what must be done. Sounds like a reasoned argument for letting it all rot.
The article and nearly all the commenters of it are nearly too bitter and histrionic for reason. You have manipulated the context and facts of Edun and it's sale to LVMH nearly beyond recognition. The writers heads are so far up their own behinds they can't see that this is a significant step for a huge conglomerate such as LVMH. Anything remotely green has always been a fate worse than death for the biggies to invest it. That it would be attempted by LVMH is significant. Everyone is familiar with your context, it's a pity you're not familiar with the context of Edun or LVMH.
[...] Helping Design US Cap & Trade Program Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
[...] Helping Design US Cap & Trade Program Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
[...] Post: The Sureness of Global Warming Skeptics Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
[...] Post: The Sureness of Global Warming Skeptics Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
[...] Post: The Sureness of Global Warming Skeptics Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
[...] Post: The Sureness of Global Warming Skeptics Phelim McAleer & Ann McElhinney, Big Hollywood: Bono Discovers Sustainable Development Isn’t Sustainable Jeffrey Jena, Big Hollywood: Beware the Earth Day Scam Radio Vice Online: No More Carbon Dioxide [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.