> On Feb 8, 2026, at 16:49, David Walters via groups.io > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know...you openly call for ending fossil fuel extraction (can't find > your exact quote).
I would help you, but it's not there: "Public ownership of fossil industries would be the best course for decreasing fossil fuel extraction and use." That's what I wrote to you in my last message. It is nonsensical to call for ending fossil-fuel production; fossil fuels have become essential and there is no "ending them" only managing nd reducing them. It is equally nonsensical to call for ending global warming without greatly reducing fossil fuel extraction and consumption. > Well...that is certainly aspirational but you focus on demand, about the need > to "lower demand". It is still kind of undefined. Saito, Foster use > "de-development" and it is a huge part of the authors you've been reading > (that I read quite awhile ago). Production for use value is what communism is > about. They write about "degrowth" not "de-development." "De-development makes me think of shutting down highways and ripping down dams, which would be a good thing but at cross purposes to dealing with global warming. Oregon gets 40% of its energy from hydro. It used to be much higher, and cheaper, but capitalist power demand has grown and reduced hydro overall contribution to regional energy. That will always happen and so there is no such thing as a transition. US capitalism can use all the power it can get. I think I COULD find the exact quote where I wrote that "degrowth" is a misnomer: It doesn't identify what will stop growing (e.g. fossil fuel expansion, GDP-based commodity exchange) and what will grow (e.g. free time, re-skilling). "Degrowth" describe an effect, and not very clearly, but it doesn't describe the cause or anything clear enough to make it part of a political platform. I think the idea of "degrowth" deserves to stay in the academy. I'm not talking about degrowth. I'm talking about de-commodification and the production of use values, i.e. public ownership of an essential and toxic resource to supply critical energy needs, manage its damage, and promote alternatives (maybe even nuclear) - rather than compete with alternatives and fund politicians to kill them. Under the peoples' management, we could say "no" to artificial intelligence data centers and carbon-intensive products. If fossil fuels stop being commodities, then fossil fuel producers will not be able to defend their value by buying politicians and influencers. Scientific opinion recognizes that our vast fossil-fuel reserves must remain un-extracted. > But it hardly addresses what you rightly are concerned about, namely the > raise in global climate temperatures which has to be accomplished within the > existing dominant, global political economy. Yes, it would, for reasons that I have cited. First, it would limit the power of fossil capital by taking profit out of its production and denying that power to capitalists. This is a program for class struggle, advocating for nuclear energy is not. Second, it can reduce the power of fossil-fuel consumers in capitalist sectors, such as tech, that overrun our energy capacity and drive up prices. Why wouldn't we reduce demand for AI data centers? Why wouldn't we factor in the carbon content of products to force a reduction? We shouldn't demand nuclear power NOW because capitalist, not workers, make those decisions and implement them to their benefit. > We can't wait until we get to universal exchange reproduction/production. This is the crux of our differences on this topic, David. You think the capitalist system can fix global warming by transitioning to a different energy source, and I do not. So you advocate capitalist power solutions, but I do not. Your "we can't wait" comment is similar to what Matt Huber wrote in his book Climate Change in Class War. But in Matt's solution as with your's, class struggle does not really factor into it. It's about growth and solving capitalism's energy impediment to growth. > You did cite some examples, like ending two major demand centers: AI and > bitcoin. But it doesn't really address how our demand for, say, electricity, > clean water, transportation etc can be addressed without policies that > mandate low carbon production of electricity, EVs, etc. That is a productivist approach to the problem of producing more power differently. I am advocating a class-struggle approach to stop environmental destruction by taking control of production. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40600): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40600 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117439078/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
