No doubt I am deluded or ignorant or stupid or some other appropriate boo word
but I fail to see how
the statement that extreme poverty makes people do environmentally damaging
actions implies
that Michael is blaming the poor for the energy crisis or any specific
environmental damages. You don't mention what Michael is supposed to be blaming
the poor for. The rape of forests by international timber giants in Borneo,
Belize, and other places? Surely it does not imply this. Anyone who thinks that
it does must be deluded, ignorant, perverse or pick your appropraite
self-designating boo word. Do you mean some general enegy shortage or crisis?
Surely it does not imply that either.I took Michael to be making the point that
for the poor concern for the environment must often take second place to
immediate survival.
The poor women of the Chipko movement were not interested in saving the forests.
They wanted their share of the wood. That is why they hugged the trees so that
they would not be cut. And is that so stupid? Only in Shiva's dream and after
the movement was hijacked was it primarily an ecological movement. The peasants
wanted the wood for fuel and to make farm implements.
Although I appreciate Jim Devine's argument for higher gas prices there is a
definite income bias
involved. The relatively well off can continue to drive their SUV's etc. while
the lower middle classes will be priced right out of the automobile market. This
saves oil but in a totally unfair way. THe large group of drivers who now enjoy
relatively cheap gas can hardly be blamed for opposing a more progressive energy
pricing policy if it threatens to end or curtail their enjoyment of automobiles
while those well off continue as before. Why not ration gasoline as was done in
wartime? Rationing by the market is rationing for the rich.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Mark Jones wrote:
> For once, I agree with Doug, who is right: it took you exaclty five minutes
> in this debate, to begin YOURSELF to start blaming the (over-breeding?)
> poor in neocolonial countries.
>
> How are the new Nike's BTW?
>
> Mark Jones
> http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
> > Sent: 27 June 2000 21:46
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [PEN-L:20766] My looniness
> >
> >
> > I am always appreciative of superlatives. If you had merely said, it was
> > stupid, I would be hurt. I was merely trying to make 2 points.
> > 1. The the
> > rich to whom Brad referred were rarely from the ranks of the poor. 2. That
> > extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions.
> >
> >
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> >
> > > > How often do the poor become rich? The environment would be
> > > > helped if the very
> > > > poor became better off --
> > >
> > > Michael, this is really and truly the looniest thing I've read
> > all day, no,
> > > all week.
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Chico, CA 95929
> > 530-898-5321
> > fax 530-898-5901
> >
> >
