It should be noted that the EPA's banning of methanol is

Hear the words of Robert Zubrin, engineer, dreamer of Mars, and challenger of orthodoxy, who declared: “It should be noted that the EPA’s banning of methanol is categorically absurd from the point of view of environmental protection.” In this saying lies the spirit of a man who sees beyond the veil of bureaucracy, who dares to call folly by its name when rules betray reason. His voice is not gentle, but sharp, for he speaks against a decision that he believes harms the very earth it claims to defend.

The origin of this saying rests in Zubrin’s long-standing advocacy for alternative fuels and practical solutions to the crises of energy and pollution. He has long championed methanol, a clean-burning fuel that can be derived from abundant natural resources, including natural gas, biomass, and even captured carbon. In his eyes, it represents a pathway to reduce dependence on oil, cut emissions, and expand human freedom. Yet when the EPA restricted its use in fuels, Zubrin saw not wisdom, but contradiction. For what sense is there, he asked, in banning a substance that could serve the cause of environmental protection far better than the fuels of old?

History offers us many examples of such contradictions, where the guardians of law became obstacles to progress. Recall how in the 19th century, governments often resisted the spread of electricity, fearing it unsafe, preferring to cling to the familiar gas lamps. Yet those who opposed it slowed the coming of a brighter, cleaner world. Or consider how early innovators of the automobile were hindered by regulations designed to protect the horse-drawn carriage. In the same way, Zubrin warns us that banning methanol is not protection, but regression—a clinging to the past while the future waits outside the gates.

At the heart of his critique is the tension between principle and practice. The EPA exists to safeguard the environment, yet by forbidding a fuel that could reduce pollution, it betrays its own mission. Zubrin calls this absurd, because it is not merely an error of detail, but a contradiction of essence. It is as if a physician, sworn to heal, were to forbid a medicine because it is unfamiliar, while continuing to prescribe a poison simply because it is old. Such decisions, he warns, are not only illogical but destructive, costing both the earth and its people dearly.

The deeper meaning of this teaching is that progress demands courage to embrace new solutions, even when they disrupt old powers and familiar systems. Too often, industries rooted in oil and politics rooted in inertia resist alternatives not because they fail, but because they succeed too well. The banning of methanol reveals how vested interests may cloak themselves in the language of protection while guarding profits and power. It is a reminder that laws must be judged not by their words, but by their fruits.

The lesson, O listener, is to be ever watchful of contradictions between purpose and action. Do not assume that because a law is written in the name of environmental protection, it truly serves the earth. Look deeper, ask questions, and demand evidence. If a new fuel, a new technology, or a new path offers genuine hope, do not let fear or bureaucracy smother it. For the earth does not care for the politics of men—it responds only to what is burned, what is spilled, and what is saved.

And what shall we do in our own lives? Support leaders and innovators who seek real solutions rather than empty gestures. Educate ourselves about alternatives like methanol, solar power, and renewables, so that we cannot be deceived by false arguments. Challenge laws and policies that protect the status quo at the expense of the future. Teach our children that stewardship requires not only care, but courage to change.

So remember the teaching of Robert Zubrin: when those who claim to protect the earth forbid tools that might save it, they have lost their way. Do not accept the absurd without protest. Demand reason, demand justice, and demand that laws serve life rather than hinder it. For only then will humanity step forward, not bound by fear, but guided by wisdom, into a cleaner and more hopeful age.