On 7/30/06, Eugene Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The attached comment is about five pages. I hope sending it as an
attachment is the least burdensome for the list.
Gene Coyle
Both are interesting. Don't see that either rejects my argument. My
argument on dematerialization is NOT that it alone is the solution,
but that it enbables other technology. That is sustainable sources are
(at the moment) more expensive (in market, though not social cost)
than non-sustainable ones. However if you use energy and water more
efficiently, dematerialize the services they provide, then you can
supply them by more expensive sustainable means, and still not lower
your GDP. Thus dematerialization is a bridging technology - allowing
us to use renewable energy now even while it is for the most part more
expensive than less sustainable sources. Also dematerialization does
not tend to happen in markets ; it may occur in a relative sense per
unit of GDP; but never in any absolute sense. You never see under a
"free market" (a really problematic term - but I 'll use it to avoid
having to make a five page reply to Coyle's five page reply) an
absolute dematerialization; use of sources and sinks always
increases. It will require carefully designed and ENFORCED
regulations, and well developed public works. It cannot be done by
market forces alone, not even with green taxes.
