====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
David S. perhaps I overstated your view...I'm sure you and Louis are opposed to the use of coal as a means of generating electricity AND that you are aware of at least the bigger problems with its use. However it is also true that you let it pass without a comment...or did I miss a post on the question of coal use AND that compared to nuclear, the risk of coal deaths is far worse. Or not. Either way you have NOT commented on it or addressed a solution to it that I'm aware. Bullshit? I think not. And certainly in terms of Louis's case, he comes back with an ultra-left position that argues, it seems, unless address the underlying capitalist cause of all this mess, we shouldn't be offering solutions. Yet,he stated he doesn't oppose wind power construction but does coal plant production. Why? What's the point? Where is the solution? He writes " The problems of whether to "go nuclear" or "go fossil" are not the ones facing the radical movement." Really? Where have you been Louis? The ENTIRE radical movement is debating this issue. When I say "we" I mean the people of the US. What do "we" do? Do do nothing which is what I infer from you is the only position? No, socialists should be fighting for solutions to the energy crisis and climate crisis. We should be *demanding* things like *better* unpolluting energy sources. We should be *demanding* an end to table-topping of West Virginia's mountains. And we should be demanding the US gov't both take over the energy industry in this country, run in the interests of the people and massively build out non-carbon energy sources that can provide cheap and abundant power. Jim, what "massive subsidies"? Most of the subsidies referred to are lumped together with the Manhattan Project (which had zero to do with nuclear energy), nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion for Navy ships in the 1950s (which nuclear energy derived *from* as a byproduct). Most of the deaths (and all that I know of) in uranium mining occurred during mining for the frantic rush to develop plutonium for US Nuclear WMD and not nuclear energy. We should never, ever, let that happen again: either that type of mining or develoment of nuclear weapons). But what did we get from those 'subsidies'...20% of our energy that is non- carbon. The 'subsidies' for direct nuclear energy (mostly in R&D) have more than paid for themselves several dozen times over. So as a 'social investment'...it was a good one. just like hydro power or the TVA. The only long term solution of course is to move toward a movement that seeks to take over the electrical energy production industry in the US, similar to our ill-fated effort here in San Francisco 10 years ago. Along these lines PG&E is pushing now create a "2/3 majority vote" for any municipal or other government entity to take over any private utility via Proposition 16 on the ballot this year, a hugely anti-democratic measure. David ________________________________________________ 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
