====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
DW wrote: > Well, once you move to the "left" and away from actual science, I have to > admit, it certainly gets more interesting. Of course few of the groups > mentioned (and none that i actually know of) have done an indept analysis of > energy alternatives to fossil. I advocate unrelenting, militant criticisms of all capitalist energy production based on oil, coal or atomic energy. Period. I am far less insistent on criticizing Iran, Venezuela or Cuba's energy-production technologies since they are battling underdevelopment and don't have the luxury to adopt Green energy at the same pace as imperialist nations. I have no "position" as such on oil, coal or atomic energy other than to ruthlessly attack their abuses, from Texaco's rape of Ecuador, mountaintop removal in Appalachia to Chernobyls, in the past and in the future. David approaches the problem from a different angle entirely and that is as a kind of freebooting consultant to the capitalist class on how to produce clean and safe energy, except of course he does it on the Marxism list as if the White House reads our archives--not that they need any convincing. All in all, I find David much more lucid politically around a whole range of issues but I on this I find him virtually Kubrickian. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
