Eco-Marxism for Toddlers

How The Lorax Demonizes Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship

The Lorax by Dr. Seuss
Published 1971 | Random House

Reviewed by Chad Pemberton
Host, The Pemberton Principle Podcast

---

Look, I get it. You probably saw the title of this review and immediately rolled your eyes. “Oh great, another right-wing nutjob going after a beloved children’s book.” I can already hear the comments section warming up. “It’s just a story about trees, Chad. Touch grass.” “This is why nobody takes conservatives seriously.” “Imagine being triggered by a children’s book.”

But here’s the thing: The Lorax isn’t just a children’s book. It’s arguably the most successful piece of anti-capitalist propaganda ever produced. It’s been read to millions of American children at the exact age when they’re forming their understanding of how the world works. And what does it teach them? That entrepreneurship is evil. That meeting consumer demand is greed. That business owners are cartoon villains who destroy the planet for profit. That economic growth and environmental sustainability are mutually exclusive. That the solution to every problem is more regulation, more government control, and listening to sanctimonious creatures who speak for the trees.

I’m not exaggerating when I say this book has done more to poison young minds against free enterprise than any economics textbook ever could. Because it gets them early, when they’re too young to think critically, and it packages its message in colorful illustrations and rhyming couplets that stick in their brains forever.

Full disclosure: I read this book to my own kids. Multiple times. Before I really understood what I was reading. Before I’d taken the red pill on environmental activism and woke capitalism. Back when I still thought climate hysteria was based on legitimate science rather than a coordinated effort to dismantle free markets and install global socialism.

Yeah, I said it. Come at me.

But then something clicked. Maybe it was watching my bamboo clothing company get destroyed by a combination of Chinese competition (operating under zero environmental regulations, by the way) and California’s suffocating regulatory regime. Maybe it was reading Thomas Sowell and realizing that good intentions don’t equal good outcomes. Maybe it was spending three years building The Pemberton Principle podcast and watching Big Tech try to silence anyone who questions the climate narrative.

Or maybe it was just reading The Lorax for the fiftieth time and suddenly seeing it clearly: this isn’t a story about environmental stewardship. It’s a hit piece on capitalism itself, teaching children that profit is dirty, that entrepreneurs are villains, and that the only people who care about the planet are sanctimonious activists who produce nothing but judgment.

So buckle up, because we’re about to deconstruct Dr. Seuss’s anti-business manifesto line by line. And before you accuse me of “reading too much into a kids’ book,” remember: the left has spent fifty years using this book to indoctrinate children into hating the economic system that created more wealth and pulled more people out of poverty than any other in human history.

If they can use it as propaganda, I can call it out.

Let’s get into it.

I. The Once-ler: Entrepreneur as Villain

The book opens with a kid seeking out the Once-ler, a mysterious figure who lives in isolation and refuses to talk about the past. Already we’re setting up an ominous vibe. The Once-ler isn’t living in a nice house. He’s in a lurking, decrepit building. He’s literally lurking. This is your first clue that Dr. Seuss wants you to see entrepreneurs as sketchy, hiding something, probably criminals.

But let’s talk about what the Once-ler actually did, because the book treats it like some kind of crime against humanity when it’s literally just… starting a business.

The Thneed: Responding to Market Demand

The Once-ler discovers Truffula Trees and invents the Thneed—“a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need.” Now, the book wants you to think this is absurd. It’s a silly made-up word for a silly made-up product. But you know what? That’s called innovation. That’s called entrepreneurship.

The Once-ler saw a resource (Truffula Trees), identified a way to transform that resource into something valuable (Thneeds), and created a product that people wanted. This is literally Economics 101. This is how wealth creation works. This is how every product you use in your daily life came into existence.

Your iPhone? Someone saw resources (rare earth minerals, silicon, human ingenuity) and transformed them into a product people wanted. Your car? Same thing. Your house? Same thing. The laptop or phone you’re reading this on right now? Same. Thing.

But Dr. Seuss presents this as inherently suspect. The Thneed is described mockingly. It’s “a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need”—note the sarcasm. The implication is clear: people don’t really need Thneeds. They only think they need them. They’ve been tricked by the evil entrepreneur into buying something useless.

This is the same argument leftists make about literally every consumer product. “Nobody needs an SUV.” “Nobody needs a McMansion.” “Nobody needs fast fashion.” They position themselves as the arbiters of what people should and shouldn’t want, dismissing the revealed preferences of millions of consumers as “false consciousness” or manipulation.

But here’s the thing: if people are voluntarily buying Thneeds, then by definition Thneeds have value. That’s how markets work. Value is subjective. If consumers are willing to trade their money (which represents their labor, their time, their resources) for Thneeds, then Thneeds are valuable to them. Full stop.

The Once-ler didn’t force anyone to buy Thneeds. He didn’t hold a gun to anyone’s head. He created a product, marketed it, and people chose to buy it. That’s called voluntary exchange. That’s called freedom.

But in Dr. Seuss’s world, this makes the Once-ler a villain.

II. The Lorax: Activist as Moral Authority

Then we meet the Lorax, who “speaks for the trees.” And oh boy, does he ever. The Lorax shows up the moment the Once-ler cuts down the first Truffula Tree and immediately starts hectoring him about environmental destruction.

Let’s be clear about what the Lorax represents: he’s the activist, the regulator, the guy who produces nothing but shows up to tell everyone else how to live. He doesn’t build anything. He doesn’t create jobs. He doesn’t innovate. He just complains.

And the book treats him as the moral authority. He “speaks for the trees” because apparently trees can’t speak for themselves (they’re trees) and need a self-appointed representative to advocate on their behalf. This is the same logic environmental activists use: “We speak for the planet.” “We speak for future generations.” “We speak for the polar bears.”

But who elected you? Who gave you the authority to speak for trees, or planets, or bears? You just appointed yourself as the voice of nature and now you get to shut down anyone who disagrees?

The Lorax Produces Nothing:

Here’s what the Lorax does in the book:

• Complains
• Scolds
• Guilt-trips
• Makes dire predictions
• Leaves when things get bad

Here’s what the Lorax doesn’t do:

• Offer solutions
• Suggest sustainable harvesting methods
• Propose property rights frameworks
• Invest in reforestation
• Create alternative products
• Work with the Once-ler to find mutually beneficial outcomes

The Lorax is pure critique with zero constructive input. He’s the guy at the town hall meeting who shows up to oppose every development project but never proposes an alternative. He’s the activist who shuts down pipelines but offers no solution for energy needs. He’s the protester who blocks traffic but has no policy proposals.

And we’re supposed to see him as the hero.

The Lorax produces nothing, offers no solutions, and abandons the Truffula Forest the moment things get difficult. Yet he’s treated as the moral authority. This is activist culture in a nutshell.

The Lorax’s Privilege:

Let’s talk about something the book never addresses: the Lorax doesn’t need the Truffula Trees for survival. He just likes them. They’re nice. They’re pretty. He enjoys living among them.

But what about people who might need the resources those trees provide? What about people who could use Thneeds to improve their lives? What about the workers who get jobs in Thneed factories? What about the economic growth that allows communities to thrive?

The Lorax doesn’t care about any of that. He has the luxury of caring only about trees because presumably his own needs are already met. This is environmental elitism in its purest form: wealthy activists who want to preserve nature for their own enjoyment while working-class people struggle to make a living.

I saw this firsthand in California. Wealthy environmentalists in San Francisco blocking housing developments because they wanted to preserve “neighborhood character.” Meanwhile, working families couldn’t afford rent. But the activists didn’t care—they already had their houses. They could afford to prioritize aesthetics over human needs.

The Lorax is the same guy. He wants the forest preserved in its “natural” state because that’s what he prefers. Never mind that harvesting those trees could create wealth, jobs, and products that improve people’s lives. The Lorax’s aesthetic preferences trump everyone else’s economic needs.

III. The Expansion: How Dare You Succeed?

So the Once-ler’s business grows. He’s meeting market demand. People love Thneeds. He expands his operation. He hires workers. He builds a factory. He calls in his whole family to help run the business.

This is the American Dream, folks. This is a small business becoming a successful enterprise. This is job creation, wealth generation, and economic growth.

And Dr. Seuss presents it as a horror story.

The Family Business:

“I called all my brothers and uncles and aunts and I said, ‘Listen here! Here’s a wonderful chance for the whole Once-ler Family to get mighty rich!’ And biggering and BIGGERING and BIGGERING and BIGGERING, turning MORE Truffula Trees into Thneeds which everyone, EVERYONE, EVERYONE needs!”

The repetition of “biggering” is meant to sound menacing. Growth is bad. Expansion is evil. Success is suspicious.

But let’s reframe this: The Once-ler created economic opportunity for his entire family. He didn’t hoard the wealth—he brought in his relatives and gave them jobs, gave them a stake in the business, allowed them to share in the prosperity. This is generational wealth-building. This is how families lift themselves out of poverty.

My grandfather started a construction business. It was small at first—just him and a truck. Then he brought in my dad. Then my uncles. Eventually it employed thirty people from our extended family and community. It paid for college educations, bought houses, funded retirements. That business “biggered” and it changed our family’s entire trajectory.

But according to The Lorax, my grandfather should have stayed small. He should have limited his success. He should have prioritized trees (or whatever the construction equivalent is) over his family’s prosperity.

That’s insane.

Meeting Consumer Demand is Not Greed:

The book emphasizes that “everyone, EVERYONE, EVERYONE needs” Thneeds. This is presented as evidence of the Once-ler’s manipulation—he’s created artificial demand for a useless product.

But again: if everyone wants Thneeds, then the Once-ler is providing a valuable service by producing them. High demand means high value. The Once-ler is responding to market signals and allocating resources efficiently to meet consumer needs.

This is how economies grow. This is how living standards improve. Someone figures out how to produce something people want, production scales up, prices come down due to economies of scale, more people can afford the product, quality of life increases.

The Once-ler didn’t create demand for Thneeds through some evil manipulation. People wanted them. He supplied them. That’s not greed. That’s serving your fellow human beings by giving them what they value.

But environmental activists hate this because it prioritizes human needs and wants over preserving nature in some imaginary pristine state. They’d rather everyone stay poor if it means fewer trees get cut down.

IV. Environmental Concerns: Real Problems, Wrong Solutions

Okay, let’s address the elephant in the room (or the Bar-ba-loot in the forest): Yes, environmental stewardship matters. Yes, we should care about sustainability. Yes, destroying ecosystems is bad.

I’m not saying we should clear-cut every forest and damn the consequences. I’m not some cartoon villain who wants to pave over nature for fun. Anyone who claims that’s what I’m arguing is strawmanning and arguing in bad faith.

But here’s what The Lorax gets completely wrong: it presents environmental destruction and economic growth as inseparable. It suggests that the only way to protect nature is to stop all business activity. It offers no nuance, no middle ground, no market-based solutions.

Property Rights and Sustainability:

You know what actually protects natural resources? Property rights.

Think about it: nobody dumps trash in their own yard, but everyone litters in public parks. Nobody lets their own car rust in their driveway, but abandoned cars sit on public streets for months. Why? Because people take care of things they own.

The tragedy of the Truffula Trees is that nobody owned them. They were a commons. The Once-ler had no incentive to manage them sustainably because he didn’t own them—he was just harvesting from an unowned resource. If he didn’t harvest them, someone else would.

But if the Once-ler had owned the forest—if he had clear property rights and long-term stakes in its productivity—he would have had every incentive to manage it sustainably. He could harvest trees while replanting. He could do selective cutting to maintain forest health. He could balance current production with future productivity.

This is how the timber industry actually works in places with clear property rights. Timber companies own their forests and manage them as long-term assets. They replant because they want to harvest again in 20-30 years. They maintain forest health because it’s in their economic interest.

But Dr. Seuss never considers this. Instead, he presents the false choice: either the Lorax protects the trees (by stopping all economic activity), or the Once-ler destroys them (by engaging in business). There’s no option for sustainable management through property rights and market incentives.

Technology and Innovation:

Here’s another thing the book completely ignores: technological innovation.

Yes, the Once-ler’s initial methods were destructive. He was cutting down trees faster than they could regrow. That’s a problem. But you know how that problem gets solved in the real world? Innovation.

Entrepreneurs develop more efficient methods. They figure out how to do more with less. They create synthetic alternatives. They invent new technologies that reduce environmental impact while maintaining productivity.

The Once-ler could have invested in research and development. He could have found ways to produce Thneeds using fewer trees, or using renewable tree-like resources, or using entirely different materials. But Dr. Seuss doesn’t allow for this possibility because it would undermine the narrative that business = environmental destruction.

In reality, capitalism drives environmental improvement. Compare the environment in wealthy capitalist countries to poor socialist countries. Compare air quality in Los Angeles today versus 1970. Compare water quality in American cities versus developing nations. Wealth and technology—both products of free markets—enable environmental protection.

But The Lorax presents a static world where the Once-ler’s methods never improve, never evolve, never become more sustainable. Because the point isn’t to solve environmental problems—it’s to demonize business itself.

V. The Brown Bar-ba-loots, Swomee-Swans, and Humming-Fish: Emotional Manipulation Through Cute Animals

Oh boy, here we go. The most emotionally manipulative section of the book.

The Bar-ba-loots, who ate Truffula Fruits, have to leave because there are no more fruits. The Swomee-Swans can’t sing because of factory smog. The Humming-Fish can’t hum because the water is polluted.

And Dr. Seuss illustrates these animals looking sad and displaced, with their big eyes and droopy expressions, designed to make children feel awful about what’s happening.

This is Emotional Manipulation 101. This is the activist playbook: show cute animals suffering, imply that anyone who supports business doesn’t care about cute animals, position yourself as the defender of helpless creatures against evil corporations.

Let’s Talk About Trade-offs:

Yes, industrial activity can displace wildlife. Yes, pollution can harm ecosystems. These are real concerns. But here’s what the book doesn’t acknowledge: there are trade-offs.

Those Thneed factories employed people. Those jobs supported families. That economic activity generated wealth that could be used for education, healthcare, housing, and yes, environmental protection.

The Bar-ba-loots had to leave the forest. That’s sad. But what about the human beings who would have been unemployed if the Thneed factory never existed? What about the families who couldn’t afford food or medicine without those jobs? Don’t they matter?

Of course they do. But they’re not cute cartoon animals, so Dr. Seuss doesn’t draw them looking sad with big eyes. Their suffering is invisible in this narrative.

The book shows us displaced Bar-ba-loots with big sad eyes. It never shows us the workers’ families who would have gone hungry without Thneed factory jobs. Emotional manipulation through selective empathy.

The Wealth-Environment Curve:

Here’s something environmental activists don’t want you to know: environmental concern is a luxury good. When people are struggling to survive, they prioritize survival over nature preservation. Once people achieve a certain level of wealth, they start caring about environmental quality and demanding cleaner air, water, and ecosystems.

This is called the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Poor countries prioritize growth over environment. As countries get wealthier, they invest in environmental protection. The wealthiest countries have the cleanest environments.

So the Thneed industry, by generating wealth, would eventually create the economic conditions for environmental protection. But we never get to see that because the Once-ler’s business collapses before reaching that stage.

The book shows us the costs of industrialization (pollution, habitat loss) without showing us the benefits (wealth, jobs, improved living standards) or the eventual environmental improvements that wealth enables.

VI. “Unless”: The Most Condescending Word in Children’s Literature

The book ends with the Once-ler, now old and alone, giving the kid a Truffula seed and sharing the Lorax’s final message: “UNLESS.”

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

This is supposed to be inspiring. It’s supposed to be a call to action. But let’s think about what it’s actually saying:

The Burden on Children:

The Once-ler is telling a child that the world’s environmental problems are now his responsibility. Not the responsibility of the Once-ler, who actually caused the problems. Not the responsibility of the Lorax, who could have worked with the Once-ler to develop sustainable practices. Not the responsibility of the society that demanded Thneeds without thinking about environmental impact.

Nope. It’s on you, kid. You have to fix this. You have to care “a whole awful lot.” You have to take on the guilt, the responsibility, the burden of saving the planet.

This is environmental activism’s favorite move: making people—especially young people—feel guilty and responsible for massive systemic issues they didn’t create and can’t possibly solve individually.

My oldest daughter came home from school one day literally crying about climate change. Crying. Because their teachers had shown them apocalyptic predictions and told them their generation had to fix it or the planet would die. Eight-year-olds shouldn’t be carrying that psychological burden. But environmental activists love creating anxiety and guilt in children because it makes them more susceptible to activist messaging.

That’s when my wife and I decided to pull our kids out of the radical leftist public school system and homeschool. 

Best choice we ever made. Anyway…

The Vagueness of “Caring”:

What does it mean to “care a whole awful lot”? What specific actions should the kid take? The book doesn’t say. Just… care. A lot. And then somehow things will get better.

This is the emptiness of environmental activism. “Raise awareness.” “Start a conversation.” “Care about the planet.” These aren’t solutions. These are feelings masquerading as action.

You know what would actually help? Property rights frameworks. Market-based carbon pricing. Investment in nuclear energy. Technological innovation in carbon capture. Genetic engineering of crops to reduce agricultural land use. These are actual solutions.

But solutions require nuance, trade-offs, cost-benefit analysis, and acknowledging that free markets can solve environmental problems. Much easier to just tell kids to “care a whole awful lot” and feel good about yourself.

The Seed as False Hope:

The Once-ler gives the kid the last Truffula seed. This is supposed to be hopeful—the kid can plant it and maybe, eventually, the forest will grow back.

But think about the economics of this. One seed. One tree, eventually. How long until that tree produces more seeds? How long until there are enough trees to support an ecosystem? How long until there are enough Truffula Trees to sustainably support Thneed production?

Decades? Centuries?

Meanwhile, what happens to all the people who wanted Thneeds? What happens to all the workers who needed jobs? What happens to the economic activity that supported communities?

The book presents “plant this seed” as a happy ending, but it’s actually condemning everyone to poverty while they wait for nature to regenerate on its own timeline. This is the environmentalist vision: sacrifice human prosperity for an imaginary future state where nature is pristine and people somehow survive without using natural resources.

It’s a fantasy. A dangerous, anti-human fantasy.

VII. What The Lorax Should Have Taught

Here’s what a responsible environmental book would look like:

The Lorax and Once-ler Partner Up:

Instead of just complaining, the Lorax could have worked with the Once-ler. “Hey, I notice you’re harvesting trees faster than they’re growing back. That’s going to be a problem for both of us. What if we developed a sustainable harvesting plan? You can continue producing Thneeds, and I’ll help ensure the forest remains healthy long-term.”

The Once-ler, being a rational businessman, would recognize that running out of trees is bad for business. He’d have every incentive to figure out sustainable practices.

Property Rights Framework:

Give the Once-ler ownership of the forest with legal responsibility for its long-term health. Now he’s incentivized to manage it sustainably because it’s his asset. He’ll invest in replanting, in forest management, in ensuring future productivity.

Innovation and Efficiency:

Show the Once-ler developing better technology. Maybe he figures out how to produce Thneeds using only the tufts of Truffula Trees without cutting them down. Maybe he develops synthetic Thneed material. Maybe he invents a more efficient production process that requires fewer resources.

This would teach kids that innovation solves problems. That entrepreneurs respond to constraints by finding better methods. That environmental challenges can be addressed through human ingenuity and market incentives.

Acknowledging Trade-offs:

Show the human beneficiaries of Thneed production. Show the workers whose lives improved. Show the communities that prospered. Then show the environmental costs. Then show the balancing act—how do we maximize human flourishing while minimizing environmental harm?

This would teach kids that real-world decisions involve trade-offs. That caring about people and caring about nature aren’t mutually exclusive. That solutions require nuance rather than cartoon villain-and-hero narratives.

But Dr. Seuss didn’t want to teach any of that. He wanted to teach that business is evil, activists are heroes, and economic growth is inherently destructive.

VIII. The Real-World Consequences of Lorax Logic

Let’s talk about what happens when Lorax logic gets applied to actual policy.

Energy Poverty:

Environmental activists shut down pipelines. They block natural gas development. They oppose nuclear power. They demand immediate transition to renewables regardless of reliability or cost.

Result? Energy prices skyrocket. Poor families can’t afford heating in winter. Manufacturing moves overseas to countries with cheaper, dirtier energy. We become dependent on foreign oil from countries with terrible environmental and human rights records.

But hey, at least we feel good about opposing the evil oil companies, right?

Housing Costs:

Environmental regulations make it nearly impossible to build new housing in places like California. Every development project faces years of environmental reviews. Activists sue to block construction. NIMBYs use environmental concerns to prevent density.

Result? Housing costs explode. Working families get priced out. Homelessness skyrockets. Young people can’t afford to start families. But at least we preserved some habitat for an endangered salamander that probably doesn’t even live there anymore.

Developing World Poverty:

Wealthy Western activists pressure developing countries to reject fossil fuels and industrialization. They demand these countries stay “green” and preserve their forests.

Result? Hundreds of millions of people remain in poverty. They can’t develop their economies. They can’t access reliable electricity. They can’t lift themselves out of subsistence agriculture. But Western environmentalists get to feel good about “saving the planet” while living in comfortable, wealthy countries that industrialized decades ago.

This is Lorax logic in action: prioritize nature over human flourishing, ignore trade-offs, demonize anyone who disagrees, and pat yourself on the back for caring.

IX. Why This Matters: Indoctrinating the Next Generation

“Chad, it’s just a children’s book. You’re being ridiculous.”

Am I though?

The Lorax is taught in schools. It’s recommended by teachers. It’s used in environmental education programs. Kids don’t just read it once—they’re exposed to it repeatedly throughout childhood.

And what do they learn?

• Business owners are greedy villains
• Economic growth is environmentally destructive
• Profit is dirty
• Activists are moral authorities
• Individual guilt is appropriate for systemic problems
• Humans are a blight on nature
• Caring is more important than solutions

These lessons get internalized. They shape how kids think about economics, about business, about their role in the world. And then these kids grow up and vote for policies based on these internalized beliefs.

They vote for politicians who promise to “fight corporate greed” without understanding how businesses create value. They support regulations that sound good (“protect the environment!”) without considering costs and trade-offs. They view entrepreneurs with suspicion rather than appreciation. They think economic growth is the problem rather than the solution.

My Own Red-Pill Moment:

I used to believe this stuff. I really did. I started a sustainable bamboo clothing company because I wanted to “make a difference.” I thought I was one of the good guys—doing business the right way, caring about the environment, not like those evil fast fashion companies.

And I got destroyed.

Chinese competitors with zero environmental regulations undercut my prices by 60%. California’s labor and environmental compliance costs ate up my margins. Customers said they cared about sustainability but bought the cheaper option every time. Investors wanted me to scale up (bigger! BIGGERING!) but that would have required compromises on my environmental standards.

I faced the exact dilemma the Once-ler faced: either abandon your principles and compete, or stick to your principles and fail.

I failed. The business collapsed. I lost everything I’d invested. My family nearly lost our house.

And you know what I realized? The system isn’t set up for good intentions. It’s set up for efficiency. Chinese companies succeeded because they were more efficient—they didn’t burden themselves with regulations that made production expensive. Fast fashion companies succeeded because they gave customers what they wanted at prices they could afford.

I was trying to be the “good guy” in a Lorax narrative, but reality doesn’t work that way. Reality has trade-offs. Reality requires balancing competing values. Reality punishes you for ignoring economic principles in favor of feeling morally superior.

X. Conclusion: Reject the False Choice

The Lorax presents a false choice: either you’re with the Lorax (environment good, business bad) or you’re with the Once-ler (business good, environment irrelevant).

But that’s not how the real world works. We can have environmental protection and economic prosperity. We can have sustainability and growth. We can care about nature and care about human flourishing.

But we can’t get there by demonizing entrepreneurs, ignoring trade-offs, and teaching children that business is inherently evil.

We get there through:

• Property rights that incentivize sustainable management
• Market mechanisms that price environmental costs
• Technological innovation that reduces resource use
• Wealth creation that enables environmental investment
• Nuanced policy that balances multiple values

None of which appears in The Lorax.

What to Do:

I’m not saying burn your copy of The Lorax. (Though honestly, if you did, the irony would be pretty funny—destroying trees to make a book about protecting trees.)

What I’m saying is: read it critically. When your kid asks about the Once-ler, talk about what he did right (innovation, job creation, meeting consumer demand) along with what he did wrong (not managing resources sustainably). When your kid asks about the Lorax, talk about how activists sometimes have valid concerns but often lack practical solutions.

Teach your kids that the world is more complex than villains and heroes. That caring about the environment and supporting business aren’t mutually exclusive. That solutions require trade-offs and hard choices, not just good intentions.

And maybe, just maybe, read them a book like The Little Red Hen that celebrates entrepreneurs instead of demonizing them. Read them something that shows how human ingenuity solves problems. Read them something that acknowledges humans as part of nature, not as a cancer destroying it.

Because here’s the truth the Lorax won’t tell you: humans are the only species that can manage ecosystems sustainably, can invent technology to reduce our footprint, can make conscious choices about balancing our needs with environmental health.

But we can only do that if we’re prosperous enough, innovative enough, and free enough to develop and implement solutions.

The Once-ler’s mistake wasn’t starting a business. It was failing to manage resources sustainably. The Lorax’s mistake wasn’t caring about trees. It was offering nothing but criticism and guilt.

The solution isn’t to choose between them. It’s to reject the false choice entirely and build a world where prosperity and sustainability go hand in hand.

But that wouldn’t make for a simple children’s book, would it? It would require nuance, complexity, and acknowledging that the real world doesn’t fit into neat moral categories.

Much easier to draw a cartoonish businessman as a villain and a smug activist as a hero and call it environmental education.

Well, I’m not buying it. And neither should you.

Stay free, stay based, and for God’s sake, teach your kids that entrepreneurship isn’t a sin.

Unless they care a whole awful lot about actual solutions instead of virtue signaling.

Then maybe, just maybe, things will actually get better.

---

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆ (0/5 stars)

---

Chad Pemberton is the host of The Pemberton Principle podcast, where he delivers “red-pilled truth about business, culture, and politics that the mainstream media won’t touch.” He’s a recovering liberal who saw the light after his sustainable bamboo clothing company was destroyed by Chinese competition and California’s regulatory regime.

Chad has been suspended from Twitter/X multiple times (currently reinstated thanks to Elon), demonetized on YouTube for “misinformation” (read: telling uncomfortable truths), and labeled a “climate denier” by fact-checkers who apparently can’t handle nuance. His podcast reaches 500,000+ listeners who are “free thinkers not afraid of censorship.”

He’s a regular speaker at Turning Point USA events, organizes Trump rallies across Florida, and has been featured on The Rubin Report, Tim Pool’s Timcast IRL, and various other platforms that still believe in free speech. His article “Why ESG Is Marxism With a Corporate Logo” went viral on Twitter before being flagged by fact-checkers and throttled by the algorithm.

Chad escaped California in 2021 (“best decision of my life”) and now lives in Florida with his wife, three homeschooled kids, a gun collection, a paid-off Tesla (bought before Elon went woke, now he drives a Rivian), and a growing investment portfolio of Bitcoin, gold, and ammo.

His motto: “Facts don’t care about your feelings, but neither do markets.”

You can find him on X @PembertonPrinciple (unless he’s been suspended again), on his podcast wherever you get your podcasts (except Spotify, they kicked him off), and organizing Trump rallies near you.

He’s currently writing a book about how woke capitalism is destroying American entrepreneurship. It’s going to be huge. Pre-order information coming soon.

Unless the publisher gets cold feet. Which they will. Because that’s how censorship works in 2025.