Unambiguously Ambidextrous: The Religion Of Environment

The elephant in the room is that the best "green" solution for the Earth, if one were to buy into the argument of reducing our impact upon the environment, is less people. It's rather simple mathematics. Our species has no natural predators, we have an improving standard of living, of health care, and of longevity. We rarely have wars anymore, and no pandemics, influenzas, or horrible diseases to "cull the herd". But if China and India come to mind every time an environmental theologian talks about the "Green Shift", culling the herd is likely the only thing that would work.

Humanity needs a good old genocide. Not a small, insignificant drop in the bucket like a few millions, or a few dozen millions. I mean that humanity needs a culling in the order of a few billions. Billions.

Am I advocating that? No. But that is the logical order for the religion of environment...

A little "full" disclosure from Joseph Romm

(In the interests of full disclosure: I consulted with Kleiner several years ago on a clean-tech investment; Doerr wrote a jacket quote for my book "The Hype about Hydrogen"; I own shares in two clean-tech start ups; and I expect to consult with VCs in the future. That is one reason I don't typically talk about individual companies.)

But if we're supposed to completely ignore any climate realist who's ever received a dime from any company that's ever received a dime from fossil fuels, why does climate alarmist Romm get a free pass?