Part bromide, part battle cry, the phrase "Go green" inspires something akin to moral superiority combined with tech savvy. Anyone that has visited a college campus in the last five years has seen the extent to which "being green" has dominated everything from research to the mottos of the maintenance crews. Being green is supposedly the answer to everything from economic recession to climate change, but what has the Green Crusade done to deserve this pedestal?

With people like Paul Ehrlich claiming that "England [would] not exist by the year 2000" back in 1969, it's almost too easy to cherry pick absurd quotes from the leaders of the Green Crusade. But what the Green Crusade has actually done since it became a dominant force in American and global culture is more telling than a few poorly thought-out one liners.

Consider, for instance, the billions of dollars of taxpayer money poured into research and development of hydrogen-based alternative fuel technologies, largely at the behest of the Green Crusade. Last year, Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu announced that he felt that a hydrogen-based car economy wouldn't be feasible in the coming decades and promptly took an axe to the hydrogen car initiative, reducing funds by $100 million. Instead, the current administration has elected to pursue electrical and hybrid "solutions." But the real punch line is that, in the meantime, the Green Crusade has been vigorously advocating another of its main agendas, a "Cap and Trade" scheme, which means that, in the words of President Barack Obama, "Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." The Green Crusade is not offering a better source of energy at all, merely less energy all around.

And how about the story of BrightSource Energy's Mojave power plant? BrightSource is a developer of solar-based energy that recently proposed the construction of a 5,130-acre solar farm capable of generating over 500 megawatts of electricity in a remote region of the eastern Mojave Desert. As a leader in renewable energy, BrightSource has taglines and business themes with a clearly "green" bend to them, so it should have gone forth with the blessing of the Green Crusade, right? Wrong. Between opposition from the Wildlands Conservancy and a push for legislation to turn the area into a national monument, BrightSource had to scrap plans for the solar plant. The policies of the various factions of the Green Crusade again came into conflict, resulting in lost time and destroyed wealth.

Some might say that these issues arise due to a few irrational elements present in the movement. This perspective fails to recognize that such conflicts arise when energy policy is made by pitting the earth against humanity. When a criterion for evaluation of energy policy is “minimizing impact” on the earth, the logical result will be outcomes that eliminate energy production and use. The Green Crusade has provided a plethora of examples showing how its driving philosophy ultimately leads not to alternative, abundant, clean energy but just to a reduction in energy consumption altogether. Energy is vital to the wondrous technologies that contribute to America's standard of living. From BMWs to gene sequencers to iPhones to particle accelerators, all are dependent on abundant, cheap energy. It’s time for Americans to re-evaluate their decision to allow the Green Crusaders to become spokesmen for the future of energy, technology and even morality in our country.

The Students of Objectivism will be hosting a guest speaker to further discuss this issue. Keith Lockitch, a fellow from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, will speak on Wednesday, Feb. 3 at 7:30 p.m. in Angell Hall Auditorium C. The event is open to the public. We welcome those interested in hearing a different perspective on the Green Crusade.

Alexander Hrin is a graduate student.