Obviously Gar Lives in the USA.
If he lived in Canada (a cold climate), he would realize that this is
nonsense.
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0800
From: Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:4593] Re: Re: Re: oil and socialism
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > And does Yoshie really believe that we can raise all the current
> > population to a decent level of material living without destroying the
> > world ecology?
> >
>
> The answer to the above is definitely yes -- the obstacles are
> political, not technical.
>
> I don't have time to do a decent essay on this. I simply going to make a
> list of assertions, whose truth or falsity you can research for yourself
> -- not fair I know, but the nice thing about list communication is you
> do not have to meet academic standards
>
> I am going to outline thee case that we can not only provide a decent
> material standard -- but a standard close to that of the US. This does
> not mean that the US good keep the same goods that it has now or that
> others could duplicate them, but that we could have equivalent goods
> provided in a slightly different manner for everyone:
>
> **********************************************************
> Energy+Transportation -- we could provide equivalent output in terms of
> heat, cooling, transportation, driving industrial engines etc -- while
> using 90% less ecologically destructive goods:
>
> This would involve: Super-insulation of new and existing buildings --
> reducing heat loss and gain
>
> Co-generation -- use of waste heat from fossil fuel plants to heat
> buildings and water for commercial, industrial and home use,
>
> short term use of Hybrid-autos where autos have to be used -- long term,
> train and trolley based transportation, including use of subsidies and
> taxes to encourage populaton shifts to urban coridors.
>
> Use of more effiecient electrical motors,
>
> Use of solar heating , cooling and air conditioning as an additial
> conservation measue in areas where this is practical (many).
>
> Use of wind power to generate a percent of electricty.
>
> A requriement that goods be manufactured with minimum lifespans to
> reduce the requriements for replacing them. (I.E. -- a great deal of
> energy is spent on the original manufacture of goods, quite separate
> from the energy required to operate them. A doubling or tripling of
> goods lifespan would save a great deal fo energy.)
>
> =======================
> Food and Fiber -- You may have been joking, but at least one banned
> sustance hemp could provide complete protein, a good sustitute for
> ecologically unsound cotton at a much lower enviromental and energy
> cost, and a substitute for wood fiber in fiberboards. It PROBABLY could
> produce paper as well -- although there are problems with converting
> hemp to paper on a large scale, and hemp paper is only produced in small
> scale operations -- thus is very expensive, and not always a high
> quality paper. This probably is solvable , but until solved should not
> be included in any calculations..
>
> In general organic waste from food and fiber production could at least
> provide chemical feedstocks for industry. Barry Commoner claims to have
> worked out some cycles incorporating corn and cattle by which meat,
> alchohol and methane could be produced, providing food and fuel without
> robbing the soil.. (and unlike some current production methods --
> providing net energy).
>
> Similarly, a combination of designing goods for long life, designing
> them to be produced with minimal waste, and designing them to last a
> long time could greatly reduce the materials used in producing goods --
> in addition to reducing energy as already mentioned above.
>
> In short technology commercially available now could sustain an USA
> Quality (though not USA Style) level of material goods while consuming
> natural sources and sinks at a level of around 5% to 10% per capital of
> what the USA does. (And yes, as a US citizen I agree the USA should set
> the example for this.)
>
> Note that I am not including fuel cells, projectiong cheap PV or any
> technolgy not currently available. And yes fossil fuels would still be
> needed -- but at a level that is environmentally sustainable.
>
> In short the barriers are not techical, nor are they feasability
> questions -- the costs of the switch in terms of labor and materials is
> by no means overwhelming. They are strictly political; our current
> economic system could not tolerate many of the changes and could not
> make many of the changes it could tolerate.
>
> >
> > Paul Phillips,
> > Economics,
> > University of Manitoba
> >
> > Date sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:40:26 -0500
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [PEN-L:4582] Re: oil and socialism
> > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Jim D. says:
> > >
> > > >Michael P. wrote: >>>Jim, don't underestimate the importance of
> > > >fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels there would be virtually no
> > > >surplus value; thus, no capitalism.<<<
> > > >
> > > >saith I: >> why?<<
> > > >
> > > >Michael replies: >Because given the limits of technology today,
> > > >without fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over
> > > >and above the subsistence needs of workers<
> > > >
> > > >Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the
> > > >effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media
> > > >talk about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was
> > > >25 years ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also
> > > >seems to be some truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per
> > > >gallon of gasoline than they used to...
> > >
> > > You must take into account the most scarce resource of all: time. In
> > > the long run, we are all dead, as Keynes reminded economists of his
> > > day. Can capital increase productivity, improve energy efficiency,
> > > and/or invent alternative energy sources (whose production does not
> > > depend upon fossil fuels) _in time_? Here, you must consider the
> > > problem of path dependency, not to mention the question of hegemony,
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > Even discounting the finiteness of any physical entity (including
> > > fossil fuels), which is not likely to become a problem in the
> > > foreseeable future, we may still encounter a quite interesting
> > > supply-side crisis, depending upon political developments in
> > > oil-producing regions which have remained as volatile as ever (hence
> > > the imperial insistence upon the expansion of the NATO & focus on
> > > Yugoslavia & Columbia in recent years).
> > >
> > > Yoshie
> > >
>
