Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I live in Manitoba. THe bulk of my electricity comes from hydro. There are two supplementary coal-fired plants that usually do not operate. Quebec electricity comes almost entirely from hydro, although some of it is imported from Labrador at cheap prices and then exported to New England states at much higher prices.. Hydro power plants do not burn fossil fuels. Ontario as well as France has considerable nuclear power.. I do not know how much electrical power is produced worldwide through hydro but it must be substantial. In Denmark over 10 percent of power is from wind. There is no reason why this cannot be increased. Global warming is likely to become more of the "in" crisis long before fossil fuels run out. In fact it could be argued that the sooner fossil fuels run out the better. By the way there are huge deposits of hydragas crystals that could be developed as a source of natural gas. Geothermal power is also an underdeveloped resource in most areas. If oil prices go to 30 or 40 dollars a barrel geothermal power would be economic even in areas such as Saskatchewan. Scrub and quick-growing wood is also actually a good source of heat plus the junk grows back very quickly releasing oxygen and using carbon dioxide. In Sweden garbage is a source of heat for some urban centers. By the by, old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of global warming. We should cut them all down and replant with quick growing trash trees that we could cut for pulp :) The problem with global warming is that it is difficult if not impossible to know if it is a long term trend or what its effects will be. Even if there is global warming the effects are mixed and there are certainly no foolproof models that would assure one of any unimaginable economic results, just that there will be considerable changes with winners and losers. Of course you could argue from a precautionary principle that action should be taken now because changes may be abrupt, irreversible and disastrous. With global warming the hydragas crystals on the floor of the Arctic Ocean may warm and become instable producing one huge natural gas fart that destabilizes the whole north of the Great White North and who knows what will happen then. Cheers, Ken Hanly Brad De Long wrote: I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or France, the bulk of your electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels...
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Ken, dams *do* consume vast quantities of carbon in their construction, as many as 12 gallons of oil per tonne of cement (the manufacture of which is uitself a leading source of GHG). The world's major hydropower resources have already been largely exploited. Some dams have a long service life, which helps payback the iunitial energy investment and possibly justifies the immense ecological damage and harm to communities which all major dams always involve. Many dams silt up after a few years and cease to provide power; they never pay back. But they leave disrupted ecosystems, ruined wetlands and water basins, salinated soil and wrecked communities. But the bottom line is that hydropower is marginal and absolutely irrelevant to the problem caused by the end of Big Oil. Some theoreticians propose building huge propellors in mid-Atlantic to be driven by the Gulf Stream; that's how desperate people are. They better be quick, in case the Gulf Stream stops flowing altogether because of global warming. By 'hydragas crystal' you mean methane hydrates locked under arctic ice sheets presumably. They are like cold fusion and other forms of perpetual motion machines. They will never be exploited. The reasons why have been laborious documented by myself (and I've been to the Soviet arctic icefields myself and know what it theoretically involved) and many others. As you say, if such hydrates ever were released it would be as a result of the melting away of the ice sheets. The amounts of methane spontaneously released into the atmosphere might, according to former Greenpeace man Jeremy Legget, trigger the feared runaway global warming which would turn this planet into Venus, hot enough to boil lead on. Geothermal is not a solution. Nor is biomass. Even if current proposals to grow prairie grass for biomass were widely implemented the energy economics would not solve the problem. Americans will have to learn to catch the bus and ride a bicycle. BTW, it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden me to hear people start saying things like "old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of global warming. We should cut them all down". Keep going, you'll get a job in the Dubya environmental team. Of course the same people who now proudly point to the reforestation of New England which happened in the past 50 years as evidence of capitalism's enviornmentally-benign impact (forgetting that the price the world has paid is the enormous quantity of fossil carbon trhe US threw into the atmopshere instead) will immediatelt start telling us what a bad thing from all sorts of *environmental* points of view, old growth forests are and how we need to cut them all down as quick as possible to get the ethanol to keep our SUV's going... Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: 30 June 2000 07:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21009] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness I live in Manitoba. THe bulk of my electricity comes from hydro. There are two supplementary coal-fired plants that usually do not operate. Quebec electricity comes almost entirely from hydro, although some of it is imported from Labrador at cheap prices and then exported to New England states at much higher prices.. Hydro power plants do not burn fossil fuels. Ontario as well as France has considerable nuclear power.. I do not know how much electrical power is produced worldwide through hydro but it must be substantial. In Denmark over 10 percent of power is from wind. There is no reason why this cannot be increased. Global warming is likely to become more of the "in" crisis long before fossil fuels run out. In fact it could be argued that the sooner fossil fuels run out the better. By the way there are huge deposits of hydragas crystals that could be developed as a source of natural gas. Geothermal power is also an underdeveloped resource in most areas. If oil prices go to 30 or 40 dollars a barrel geothermal power would be economic even in areas such as Saskatchewan. Scrub and quick-growing wood is also actually a good source of heat plus the junk grows back very quickly releasing oxygen and using carbon dioxide. In Sweden garbage is a source of heat for some urban centers. By the by, old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of global warming. We should cut them all down and replant with quick growing trash trees that we could cut for pulp :) The problem with global warming is that it is difficult if not impossible to know if it is a long term trend or what its effects will be. Even if there is global warming the effects are mixed and there are certainly no foolproof models that would assure one of any unimaginable economic results, just that there will be considerable changes with winners and losers. Of course you could argue
Re: My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/00 06:45PM Yes, one can be a "brown Marxist" and still be against environmental racism. In point of fact, the missing dimension in Harvey's thought is ecology itself. To take a stand against toxic dumps without considering the overall political economy which is driving their location in poor neighborhoods serves Marxism poorly. CB: This sounds like Harvey is not a Marxist. How could a Marxist not consider the overall political economy in approaching anything ? ___
Re: Re: My looniness
Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/00 06:45PM Yes, one can be a "brown Marxist" and still be against environmental racism. In point of fact, the missing dimension in Harvey's thought is ecology itself. To take a stand against toxic dumps without considering the overall political economy which is driving their location in poor neighborhoods serves Marxism poorly. CB: This sounds like Harvey is not a Marxist. How could a Marxist not consider the overall political economy in approaching anything ? Harvey has a pretty good idea of what drives the location of toxic dumps. If you want to know what he thinks, read his book(s), not these reckless, tendentious mischaracterizations. Doug
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
be as a result of the melting away of the ice sheets. The amounts of methane spontaneously released into the atmosphere might, according to former Greenpeace man Jeremy Legget, trigger the feared runaway global warming which would turn this planet into Venus, hot enough to boil lead on. Geothermal is not a solution. Nor is biomass. Even if current proposals to grow prairie grass for biomass were widely implemented the energy economics would not solve the problem. Americans will have to learn to catch the bus and ride a bicycle. BTW, it doesn't surprise me but it does sadden me to hear people start saying things like "old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of global warming. We should cut them all down". Keep going, you'll get a job in the Dubya environmental team. Of course the same people who now proudly point to the reforestation of New England which happened in the past 50 years as evidence of capitalism's enviornmentally-benign impact (forgetting that the price the world has paid is the enormous quantity of fossil carbon trhe US threw into the atmopshere instead) will immediatelt start telling us what a bad thing from all sorts of *environmental* points of view, old growth forests are and how we need to cut them all down as quick as possible to get the ethanol to keep our SUV's going... Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly Sent: 30 June 2000 07:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21009] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness I live in Manitoba. THe bulk of my electricity comes from hydro. There are two supplementary coal-fired plants that usually do not operate. Quebec electricity comes almost entirely from hydro, although some of it is imported from Labrador at cheap prices and then exported to New England states at much higher prices.. Hydro power plants do not burn fossil fuels. Ontario as well as France has considerable nuclear power.. I do not know how much electrical power is produced worldwide through hydro but it must be substantial. In Denmark over 10 percent of power is from wind. There is no reason why this cannot be increased. Global warming is likely to become more of the "in" crisis long before fossil fuels run out. In fact it could be argued that the sooner fossil fuels run out the better. By the way there are huge deposits of hydragas crystals that could be developed as a source of natural gas. Geothermal power is also an underdeveloped resource in most areas. If oil prices go to 30 or 40 dollars a barrel geothermal power would be economic even in areas such as Saskatchewan. Scrub and quick-growing wood is also actually a good source of heat plus the junk grows back very quickly releasing oxygen and using carbon dioxide. In Sweden garbage is a source of heat for some urban centers. By the by, old growth forests are the worst trees from the point of view of global warming. We should cut them all down and replant with quick growing trash trees that we could cut for pulp :) The problem with global warming is that it is difficult if not impossible to know if it is a long term trend or what its effects will be. Even if there is global warming the effects are mixed and there are certainly no foolproof models that would assure one of any unimaginable economic results, just that there will be considerable changes with winners and losers. Of course you could argue from a precautionary principle that action should be taken now because changes may be abrupt, irreversible and disastrous. With global warming the hydragas crystals on the floor of the Arctic Ocean may warm and become instable producing one huge natural gas fart that destabilizes the whole north of the Great White North and who knows what will happen then. Cheers, Ken Hanly Brad De Long wrote: I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or France, the bulk of your electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels...
RE: My looniness
Ken Hanly wrote: There are tons ( ;) ) of coal reserves No, there are not. You are wrong, and please don't bore me with some half-understood snippet of USGS deliberate misinformation. Coal will not be economically recoverable, at present rates of extraction + growth, after about 2040. I'm happy to discuss this in detail. we could expand nuclear power dramatically No, we could not. Nuclear power, even if it worked, is not a solution and can never be a substitute for fossil, if only because of *its own* greenhouse impact. Sustainability cannot be realised by substituting one form of unsustainable energy for another, especially when the altyernative is either an energy sink, or more likely a DNA-catastrophe waiting to happen if not now, in 100 years time when society is no longer capable of stroing/processing nuclear waste. You have to start from the recognition that energy-consumption will drop by orders of magnitude, and work out the consequences of that for a 'full' world, where energy-scarcity will have far more serious implications than say for the 'half-empty' world of the 1900 house. It is highly unlikely that one alternative to fossil fuel will be found to solve the crisis but this is what you seem to demand. You haven't found ANY substitutes, not ONE that stands scrutiny. There are a large number of alternatives that collectively may help alleviate the crisis. Such as? Name them. Even so I don't see how capitalism could even begin to solve the crisis without a huge increase in regulation and decrease in consumption. Capitalism cannot by definition do this. What I find annoying about your posts is your absolute certainty about the fossil fuel crisis. And what I find odd is your absolute inability to argue with this, and absolute inability to accept the given facts nonetheless. Of course given a sufficient length of time we will run out of them but I don't see the problem is all that urgent compared to others, including as others have pointed out, global warming. Without oil US capitalism will collapse. There are no substitutes. There are no plans, no backups. Nothing. So far the West has managed to avoid the problem principally by exporting energy-famines elsewhere. That cannot continue. There is no ceiling to oil prices. There is no limit to the potential economic damage of energy-crises. Of course it is true that energy-crises are as much symptom as cause of deep anbd longstanding systemic disequilibria. But this is only another way of sayiong that world capitalism is already deep into a historical impasse from which it has no exit. You do not talk much about distributive issues. Surely an argument could be made that distribution of resources that results in many of the worlds population slowly starving to death in abject poverty is as significant a crisis as global warming or the energy crisis. Redistribution is not a problem for the people who count, namely the citizens of EuroAmerica and the elites. One dollar = one vote, remember. I write a great deal about the agonising fate of the multibillioned masses living in abject poverty, altho not on pen-l. But in this debate, that is not the principal issue. It is a red-herring, as I've said before. Lachrymose handwringing about 'surplus population' is the liberals' mirror-inverse of racism about immigration; both stances are principally acts of denial, of inability to acknowledge and face up to the core problem. Your response to fossil fuel alternatives is to say that they are not. Period. End of discussion. I'm happy to discuss it. I have answered your ideas about alternatives, renewable etc. Prove me wrong, I'm waiting. NAME the alternatives, SHOW how they'll be viable. There are plenty who think it'll all be OK on the day: check out Amory Lovins for eg. There are hot discussions about geothermal, PV's etc. The jury is out on some of these technical issues. But history is not waiting for answers. Civilisations do tend to enter critical situations and to find no solutions radical enough to sustain living standars or life at all for many. Libraries do burn. Rome did fall. scientists are divided and many claim that one can just not make any strong knowledg claims Which scientists? What claims? Cut to the chase. Mark Jones
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Unless you live in the Pacific Northwest or France, the bulk of your electricity comes from power plants that burn fossil fuels...
Re: Re: My looniness
Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 05:27PM And Rod also wrote: It's just that as a point of departure global warming will not work. ) CB: I don't think the facts of the recent history of party formation support you here, Carrol. The biggest new party in the world in the last 40 years is the Greens. We are a long way from Lady Bird's "Don't be a litterbug" campaign. Long range threats to the environment will, I admit, energize many people, but there seems to be at least two limits: (a) the issue itself reverberates at all for only a relatively small number of people and (b) within that constituency too many flake off in weird directions (witness Dennis Redmond on the Marxism list putting whales before Indian literation. My original point was that *within* larger movements otherwise generated concern for the environment and the long range health of humanity will further energize those movements, but that they will never emerge from a primray focus on the environment. I think the rest of your post supports my point. Another example, the one demonstration held in conjunction with the Detroit BRC meeting was to protest a polluted dump on Wabash street. A leader of Detroiters for Environmental Justice was a co-chair of the BRC host committee. Two big points here. First, the BRC did not arise from environmental concern but (and rightly so) has incorporated environmental concers into its program. The second point in a way is even bigger. The particular action you cite fits David Harvey's picture of environmental action, and David Harvey is categorized by Lou as a "Brown Marxist." I doubt that the protestors would have taken time out from more important business (political or personal) to leaflet on Wabash Ave. not about the local dump but on the dangers of Detroit drowning in Lake Erie 50 years from now. I think a lot more people than explicitly express it now, have by common sense in the back of their mind a concern that they can't just keep "partying" at this level without paying the piper eventually. I agree. That is why I believe environmental and energy concerns should figure prominently in any left program. But the program has to be founded on other concerns. It is like smoking cigarettes. If given a way and if everybody else starts stopping, they would like to stop. Tsk Tsk Charles. Do I perceive methodological individualism raising its sinister head. :-) Also, to me , the struggle against nuclear weapons is half an "environmental" struggle. Granted. That is abstractly true. But I am talking about the tasks of *building* a working-class movement. I argue that environment can be an important but still subordinate part of that movement. The movement against nuclear weapons did gather to it many people from many different walks of life and political perspectives -- but frankly I dout it would have come into existence to reach that movement were it not for the various CPs linked to the USSR. What I'm arguing for is more consideration of the way various issues and potential issues link to each other and world conditions now. I think that, temporarily at least, Mark and Lou are so focused on global warming and energy depletion that (even assuming them to be correct in that concern) they are losing their political senses. Lenin remarks on the common fact of petty-bourgeois youth driven to a frenzy by the horrors of imperialism. He should have said conscious people from all classes being so driven. I fear that Lou and Mark are similarly being driven to an (unthinking) frenzy by the environmental horrors they perceive. Carrol
My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/29/00 12:01PM Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 05:27PM And Rod also wrote: It's just that as a point of departure global warming will not work. ) CB: I don't think the facts of the recent history of party formation support you here, Carrol. The biggest new party in the world in the last 40 years is the Greens. We are a long way from Lady Bird's "Don't be a litterbug" campaign. Long range threats to the environment will, I admit, energize many people, but there seems to be at least two limits: (a) the issue itself reverberates at all for only a relatively small number of people and (b) within that constituency too many flake off in weird directions (witness Dennis Redmond on the Marxism list putting whales before Indian literation. My original point was that *within* larger movements otherwise generated concern for the environment and the long range health of humanity will further energize those movements, but that they will never emerge from a primray focus on the environment. I think the rest of your post supports my point. )) CB: Maybe I am jumping into the middle after my several days away, but one thought that occurs to me is that there seem to be a few symptoms of global warming observable now, like El Nino and warmer average temperatures. I agree that the enviromental problem generated concerns have to operate in the larger mix of activism. Green without red is a poor way to go at it. But I don't see Lou and Mark approaching it that way. Another example, the one demonstration held in conjunction with the Detroit BRC meeting was to protest a polluted dump on Wabash street. A leader of Detroiters for Environmental Justice was a co-chair of the BRC host committee. Two big points here. First, the BRC did not arise from environmental concern but (and rightly so) has incorporated environmental concers into its program. __ CB: But Detroiters for Environmental Justice, which is carrying out more actions in Detroit than the BRC, did. _ The second point in a way is even bigger. The particular action you cite fits David Harvey's picture of environmental action, and David Harvey is categorized by Lou as a "Brown Marxist." I doubt that the protestors would have taken time out from more important business (political or personal) to leaflet on Wabash Ave. not about the local dump but on the dangers of Detroit drowning in Lake Erie 50 years from now. ___ CB: If you care to, give me a little more on what you mean about this action fitting Harvey's Brown Marxist. I'm thinking "Brown Marxist" ( besides me, Marxist Brown) is someone who appeals to immediate self-interest of those propagandized ? The other thing is , isn't there an uncertain time frame for some of these catastrophes ? Also, doesn't the recent history of socialism vs capitalism, put Marxists into a mixed short term/long term analysis as basis for propaganda ? I think a lot more people than explicitly express it now, have by common sense in the back of their mind a concern that they can't just keep "partying" at this level without paying the piper eventually. I agree. That is why I believe environmental and energy concerns should figure prominently in any left program. But the program has to be founded on other concerns. _ CB: Yea, and especially because the only way to get at the environmental concerns is through anti-capitalist revolution. No green without red. It is like smoking cigarettes. If given a way and if everybody else starts stopping, they would like to stop. Tsk Tsk Charles. Do I perceive methodological individualism raising its sinister head. :-) ___ CB: Don't quite follow. There is no collective consciousness except in as it exists in individuals. Plus, above links the individual change to "everybody" changing, a social approach to the individual, the individual as a social being. Also, to me , the struggle against nuclear weapons is half an "environmental" struggle. Granted. That is abstractly true. But I am talking about the tasks of *building* a working-class movement. I argue that environment can be an important but still subordinate part of that movement. The movement against nuclear weapons did gather to it many people from many different walks of life and political perspectives -- but frankly I doubt it would have come into existence to reach that movement were it not for the various CPs linked to the USSR. _ CB: Again, maybe I am jumping in without knowing the issues, but I'm not arguing that red should be subordinated to green. Peace ( anti-war) was always a primary red issue, but nuclear weapons added a catastrophic quantum leap to it, augmenting the urgency. Now I'll really fall afoul of whatever, and say that sometimes I think the Soviet people saw avoidance of nuclear omnicide as more important
Re: Re: Re: My looniness
Carrol: (and rightly so) has incorporated environmental concers into its program. The second point in a way is even bigger. The particular action you cite fits David Harvey's picture of environmental action, and David Harvey is categorized by Lou as a "Brown Marxist." I doubt that the protestors would have taken time out from more important business (political or personal) to leaflet on Wabash Ave. not about the local dump but on the dangers of Detroit drowning in Lake Erie 50 years from now. You totally misunderstand the issues, although I am glad that you are finally defining yourself with more clarity. I always suspected that beneath the barrage of personal insults that you direct against Mark and I there lurks a strong sympathy for Harvey's ideas, at least as you've gleaned them from email exchanges. Yes, one can be a "brown Marxist" and still be against environmental racism. In point of fact, the missing dimension in Harvey's thought is ecology itself. To take a stand against toxic dumps without considering the overall political economy which is driving their location in poor neighborhoods serves Marxism poorly. Marxists must think globally and in epochal terms. We do not pooh-pooh the problem of disappearing old-growth forests because it is not of immediate concern to black people, nor do we stop raising our voices about species extinction because middle-class people care more about the Panda or the Grizzly Bear. Those kinds of animals belong to all humanity and their disappearance would be as much of an assault on our true civilized values as if somebody went into the Metropolitan Museum and set fire to all the French Impressionist canvases. Harvey's problem is that he is an isolated, petty-bourgeois left professor like most of the denizens of PEN-L and wants desperately to connect with the underclass, in his case black Baltimoreans. He went into a saloon on Earth Day and all the black folks were muttering about how little it meant to them. So he decided to accomodate to their lack of understanding and wrote a book defending this kind of parochialism using Leibnizian philosophy. That's the long and the short of it. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 05:27PM And Rod also wrote: Oh Carrol get with the programme. You are to organize all the True Believers and take them off to Jonestown It has occurred to me that in speaking of political activity many of us do not make clearly enough the distinction between agitation and organizing. They are inseparable in practice, but they are distinguishable and should be distinguished in thought. My central concern in reference to the issue of global warming is that I think Mark's and Lou's own intensity has concealed for them that for large masses of people global warming will *not* work as agitational material. People *can* (have been / will be) mobilized around issues most of which demand concern for a future beyond that of those in motion. It's just that as a point of departure global warming will not work. ) CB: I don't think the facts of the recent history of party formation support you here, Carrol. The biggest new party in the world in the last 40 years is the Greens. We are a long way from Lady Bird's "Don't be a litterbug" campaign. Another example, the one demonstration held in conjunction with the Detroit BRC meeting was to protest a polluted dump on Wabash street. A leader of Detroiters for Environmental Justice was a co-chair of the BRC host committee. I think a lot more people than explicitly express it now, have by common sense in the back of their mind a concern that they can't just keep "partying" at this level without paying the piper eventually. It is like smoking cigarettes. If given a way and if everybody else starts stopping, they would like to stop. Also, to me , the struggle against nuclear weapons is half an "environmental" struggle. CB
Re: My looniness
I could not answer any better than Ken did. I was also thinking of farmers in Latin America being booted off their lands and then farming on the hills. Am I blaming the peasants? Of course not. I was only making the point that increasing their ability to survive would decrease the pressure that makes them do environmentally destructive things. I don't mind if someone accuses me of something stupid. Surely I have contributed my share of stupidity/looniness to the list and to others -- but why are we so quick to ascribe racism, sexism, . to anything that seems to sound as if it does not say what is expected. Ken Hanly wrote: 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: My looniness
I began by mentioning the need to control the rich. Brad suggested, if I understood him correctly, that I might mean that I would like to see the poor remain poor to minimize the impact of the rich. Then I responded about the environmental problems associated with extreme poverty. I absolutely agree about the SUV's, which was my original point. I do not blame deforestation on the poor. They tend to take small amounts of wood off marginal land, which is harmful nonetheless. Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. But nothing compared to us car-driving, air-conditioned people. You sound like the World Bank here, blaming deforestation on poor indigenes rather than rapacious corporate loggers. Do you really mean this? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Ken Hanly wrote: 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. This is what *really* makes me wonder. When you are faced with the catastrophe of global warming and the terminal catastrophe for capitalism (and us) of exhaustion of its huge energetics base, you start talking about tax-offsets and equity in gasoline prices. If you were on the Titanic you'd be discussing whether rent being charged for a lifeboat seat was absolute or only differential. Hopeless, completely hopeless. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: RE: My looniness
At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: 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. Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long could it have lasted? Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: RE: My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 10:46AM Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. _ CB: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend on fosssil fuels ultimately ?
Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I wrote: Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Charles writes: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend on fosssil fuels ultimately ? Of course, electricity can be generated by solar power, wind power, tidal power, etc. But the discussion on pen-l concerning this issue strongly suggests that it's not fossil fuels (and their limited supply) _per se_ that are the problem. Rather, it's the pollution that's the problem. Some fossil fuels -- e.g., natural gas -- seem to pollute less (though I'd like to hear an expert on this issue). BTW, I think we should move toward the best European model -- and beyond. There's no need to be limited by what's already been done. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
At 04:36 PM 6/28/00 +0100, you wrote: Jim, you are such a disappointment to me. "wheelchair-friendly busses"? Gimme a break. There won't be these kinds of kindly options. hey, we've got them in Culver City, where I live. The engine is on top of the bus, so that the passenger compartment is much lower. The surrounding city of Los Angeles is buying a bunch of them, too (after MASSIVE popular criticism from all directions of the plan to continue buying diesel busses). The W European model is not gas its flatus, please get your nose off the deck and look at the global problem, man. You have *SO MUCH* to contribute. Get with the fucking program. I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I recommend that others do so, too. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 11:38AM Charles writes: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend on fosssil fuels ultimately ? Of course, electricity can be generated by solar power, wind power, tidal power, etc. But the discussion on pen-l concerning this issue strongly suggests that it's not fossil fuels (and their limited supply) _per se_ that are the problem. Rather, it's the pollution that's the problem. __ CB: I agree that there is the pollution problem. However, I have not been persuaded by PEN-L discussion that limited supply of fossil fuels is not a second problem along with pollution, global warming and otherwise. We have two big problems: pollution and depletion. Right now I am focussing on the latter. I don't see anybody clearly disproving Mark Jones and Lou Proyect's arguments that running out of fossil fuels IN MUCH , MUCH LESS THAN A MILLION YEARS, like at most a century or two, is a big problem as well as pollution. Some fossil fuels -- e.g., natural gas -- seem to pollute less (though I'd like to hear an expert on this issue). BTW, I think we should move toward the best European model -- and beyond. There's no need to be limited by what's already been done. _ CB: Definitely. Agree. As you and I said, what about solar ?
Re: Re: Re: My looniness
I began by mentioning the need to control the rich. Brad suggested, if I understood him correctly, that I might mean that I would like to see the poor remain poor to minimize the impact of the rich. No. I said that one has to be very careful deploying that kind of argument because it does run the risk of sliding toward the position that the poor need to remain poor for ecological reasons--not that you had already slid to that position.
Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 10:46AM Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. _ CB: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend on fosssil fuels ultimately ? Yes, but the power plants that generate electricity are roughly twice as efficient in pollution terms as internal combustion engines.
Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness (fwd)
Mark, I have been watching your sarcasmic criticisms with enthusiasm for two days. You F many on the list left and right. What can I say? I really admire your sense of humor. Marxists are generally known to be cool people. You are truly sarcastic! sarcastically, Mine
Re: My looniness
Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine You can't have W. European-style mass transport without W. European social geography temporality of work, residence, consumption, though. Short of socialism, it seems impossible to stop suburban exurban sprawl in the USA. As long as people live in one place, work at another place, and shop have fun in yet other places, all inconveniently spread apart, and do so at all kinds of hour; further, as long as workplaces are wildly scattered about, it appears futile to ask them to abandon cars and get on the bus. The problem, in other words, is not susceptible to tinkering here and there. Yoshie
Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see why rationing would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, as long as the rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts to subsidize a system they do not use. You are right of course about the growth of grey markets and black markets that still afford the well off superior treatment under rationing. THe same thing happens with our medicare system where doctors, and politicians jump queues or travel to the US but the system nevertheless works reasonably well--and would work much better if properly funded. If the rich are part of the rationing system then they have a stake in it and will be interested in seeing to it that it works. At least you show concern for the relative impact of policies on different income groups. Mark Jones apparently thinks this is fiddling while Rome burns. Jim Devine wrote: At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: 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. Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long could it have lasted? Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: My looniness (fwd)
Oh Carrol get with the programme. You are to organize all the True Believers and take them off to Jonestown -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Ken In addition, it might be useful to ban auto traffic in high density areas. It would be difficult, but worth a debate in our major cities. My local paper this morning predicts 60 to 70 extra deaths this summer (in a city of about half a million) due to air pollution. Properly handled this should at least generate some public discussion. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see why rationing would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, as long as the rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts to subsidize a system they do not use. You are right of course about the growth of grey markets and black markets that still afford the well off superior treatment under rationing. THe same thing happens with our medicare system where doctors, and politicians jump queues or travel to the US but the system nevertheless works reasonably well--and would work much better if properly funded. If the rich are part of the rationing system then they have a stake in it and will be interested in seeing to it that it works. At least you show concern for the relative impact of policies on different income groups. Mark Jones apparently thinks this is fiddling while Rome burns. Jim Devine wrote: At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: 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. Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long could it have lasted? Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I wrote: I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I recommend that others do so, too. Doug writes: Hmm, not very promising for "ORGANISING"! It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat death of the earth. They'll just shrug their shoulders ignore you - or, to quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you know the lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer the tease of redemption and eternal life. Good luck organizing, Mark. In addition to the content, we should be conscious of the style used in preaching. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:/bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Actually, the 'cadre' of the Seattle demonstrators were organized in response to what they see as a looming catastrophe. Mark, John Foster and I are trying to develop a theoretical alternative to the kind of deep ecology beliefs that moved them into action. It boils down to Marxism versus Zerzan's nihilism. It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat death of the earth. They'll just shrug their shoulders ignore you - or, to quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you know the lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer the tease of redemption and eternal life. Good luck organizing, Mark. Doug
Re: My looniness
At 03:44 PM 6/28/00 -0400, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 03:10PM In addition to the content, we should be conscious of the style used in preaching. __ CB: But if you were convinced of all the content of what Mark is saying, do you mean you would not support him in this discussion because he has a had a poor style in saying it ? the style and the substance mesh well in this case. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 03:10PM In addition to the content, we should be conscious of the style used in preaching. __ CB: But if you were convinced of all the content of what Mark is saying, do you mean you would not support him in this discussion because he has a had a poor style in saying it ? Really, just about everybody currently on this list has said something that annoyed just about everybody else on this list at sometime even just since I have been here. But we are still talking to each other. Brad D. and I are almost old war buddies like Roosevelt and Stalin. If we can talk to each other still, flaming and bad style are losing their fire. The other thing is that the content of what Mark is saying dictates that he use urgent , agitational style. If you agree with his content, his style is logical.
My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 02:57PM Jim Devine wrote: I find your e-missives to be useless. Therefore, I've instructed the Eudora program to automatically transfer them to the trash bin. I recommend that others do so, too. Hmm, not very promising for "ORGANISING"! It's kind of hard to organize people around catastrophe. With few exceptions, most people don't want to hear about the imminent heat death of the earth. __ CB: I'm not disagreeing with Doug's thought on the psychology of persuasion and organizing, but it is not the death of the earth, but rather some level of catastrophe for the human species. The earth would still be here sans most humans , I believe. I have perhaps missed some of Mark's message, but to avoid the problem Doug raises, the pitch would have to be that the catastrophe is not inevitable, that it can be avoided if we make drastic changes ___ They'll just shrug their shoulders ignore you - or, to quote A.R. Ammons, who wouldn't turn up the voltage when you know the lights are going out? At least apocalyptic religions offer the tease of redemption and eternal life. Good luck organizing, Mark. Doug
Re: My looniness
and the light became so bright and so blindin' in this layer of paradise that the mind of man was bewildered. (Canto 38) Rod Hay wrote: Ken In addition, it might be useful to ban auto traffic in high density areas. It would be difficult, but worth a debate in our major cities. My local paper this morning predicts 60 to 70 extra deaths this summer (in a city of about half a million) due to air pollution. Properly handled this should at least generate some public discussion. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see why rationing would not work. Rod, Ken Here you provide grounds for Mark's and Lou's ultra-leftist despair on this question -- and they could properly respond with the old chestnut about putting bandaids on cancers. It is not only those with Mark's oratorical style who are in essential agreement with the fundamental points Mark and Lou make. Some quite sober, quite unfrenzied people, who do have the technical qualifications to judge in these matters, have made a pretty good case the very real threat global warming represents. Suggesting limiting traffic in cities, by itself, is every bit as much out of touch with political reality as I have argued Mark and Lou are. Carrol And Rod also wrote: Oh Carrol get with the programme. You are to organize all the True Believers and take them off to Jonestown It has occurred to me that in speaking of political activity many of us do not make clearly enough the distinction between agitation and organizing. They are inseparable in practice, but they are distinguishable and should be distinguished in thought. My central concern in reference to the issue of global warming is that I think Mark's and Lou's own intensity has concealed for them that for large masses of people global warming will *not* work as agitational material. People *can* (have been / will be) mobilized around issues most of which demand concern for a future beyond that of those in motion. It's just that as a point of departure global warming will not work. Carrol
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
. . . Good luck organizing, Mark. Doug Don't sell him short. I think Mark has united PEN-L. mbs
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Yeah, hang separately or hang together. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky Sent: 28 June 2000 22:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20893] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness . . . Good luck organizing, Mark. Doug Don't sell him short. I think Mark has united PEN-L. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
I don't understand. Is the YES meant to imply that electricity production depends ultimately upon fossil fuels? Surely very little electricity is produced by burning diesel or gas. Or are you talking about cars that burn fuel and charge batteries that run them? There are also cars and trucks that run on batteries alone of course and these can be charged at regular outlets with electricity generated by water power, or less likely wind or solar power. What are we talking about? By the way there is also thermal power for heating, used quite a bit in Iceland for example. I use wood. With a good stove it is not all that polluting. Of course this is feasible only in certain locales. But this area is filled with crap wood, quaking aspens or white poplar. They are short lived and right now you wouldn't want to hug them unless you like squishing tent caterpillars As far as home heating is concerned surely there is less and less reliance on fossil fuels and more on electricity. Electricity can also be supplemented by solar panels and also storage with heat pumps etc. Does being twice as efficient in pollution terms mean that they produce twice the pollution for the samo amount of power :) Cheers, Ken Hanly. Brad De Long wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 10:46AM Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. _ CB: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend on fosssil fuels ultimately ? Yes, but the power plants that generate electricity are roughly twice as efficient in pollution terms as internal combustion engines.
My looniness
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 01:10PM [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/28/00 10:46AM Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. _ CB: Yes, and what about electric powered vehicles ? Do they depend on fosssil fuels ultimately ? Yes, but the power plants that generate electricity are roughly twice as efficient in pollution terms as internal combustion engines. CB: How do batteries fit into this ? What about batteries that recharge directly from sunlight ?
Re: Re: My looniness
Yoshie writes: You can't have W. European-style mass transport without W. European social geography temporality of work, residence, consumption, though. Short of socialism, it seems impossible to stop suburban exurban sprawl in the USA. As long as people live in one place, work at another place, and shop have fun in yet other places, all inconveniently spread apart, and do so at all kinds of hour; further, as long as workplaces are wildly scattered about, it appears futile to ask them to abandon cars and get on the bus. The problem, in other words, is not susceptible to tinkering here and there. Living in greater Los Angeles (or in terms of environmental quality, "lesser LA"), I am quite aware that Yoshie has an important insight. Here, it's absolutely true that "people live in one place, work at another place, and shop have fun in yet other places, all inconveniently spread apart, and do so at all kinds of hour; further, as long as workplaces are wildly scattered about, it appears futile to ask them to abandon cars and get on the bus." Thus, we have more traffic congestion than almost anyplace else in the US (or perhaps _the_ worst congestion, but I don't have the stats) and if it weren't for the EPA, the pollution would be really really bad, much worse than presently. (It's little-known, but by official standards, pollution in LA has generally been falling. It's not the market at work, though.) Of course, much or all of the US urban areas are becoming more and more like LA, so our experience is relevant outside of the City of Angels. In LA, we don't only have to worry about urban sprawl, but also the fact that the folks who are charge of public transportation are fully capable of wasting billions on a public train system that gives their cronies construction contracts while draining funds away from the busses, screwing the working poor (as usual). (Thus, we have a very active and effective Bus-Rider's Union. See http://www.igc.org/lctr/. As they say in Hollywood, the Bus Riders' Union is a "player.") I wouldn't say that rational public transit needs socialism, since W. Europe attained its system under the influence of labor movements and social-democratic parties. However, since the social-democratic compromises were the result of the popular struggle for socialism, socialism is clearly relevant. (Of course, we should remember that New York city didn't attain its social geography and its abundance of public transport due to an effort to attain socialism.) Further, the US social geography is changing. Here in LA, they can't build any new freeways (except maybe to finish one), because of the resistance of the homeowners and businesses displaced by such construction -- and also because most people seem to have figured out that freeways are a dead-end in the effort to deal with congestion and pollution. (Almost everyone regrets the scrapping of the old public rail system.) The rise in congestion is encouraging not only car-pooling and greater interest in public transport, but seems to be having an effect on where people live. Though there are still people who want to live in Riverside and commute to the city (quite a long distance), apartment buildings in LA are getting taller and more concentrated. LA is slowly lurching toward Manhattan-style living. I know that people are taking traffic congestion into account in a lot of their decisions these days. That has an effect. (BTW, car-pooling, bus lanes on the freeways, etc. are also encouraged by the government.) If gas prices were higher, it would encourage the trend. And the trend needs to be encouraged. Ken Hanly writes: If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see why rationing would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, as long as the rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts to subsidize a system they do not use. It seems to me that a political movement is needed to counteract the baleful influence of the rich either to attain gas rationing or greater public transportation (and to make sure it's done right). I think it's better if we use our political resources to push for the latter. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Los Angeles, the city of your future: the city of smog, traffic jams at 2 a.m., unfinished, incoherent, and very expensive subway systems, earthquakes, modern slavery, wildfires, mudslides sinkholes, civil disturbances (a.k.a. riots or rebellions), chaotic schools, OJ, the Menendi, and Heidi Fleiss (daughter of our nephew's pediatrician).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: My looniness
Good point. Seems to me that Ottawa has such an area, and doesn't Vancouver. I don't know about US cities. We don't suffer too much from pollution or development in this area, although sometimes when I pass farmers who are spraying I pray that my lungs are Roundup Ready.I guess the next step will be to genetically engineer farm babies to be herbicide tolerant. CHeers, Ken Hanly Rod Hay wrote: Ken In addition, it might be useful to ban auto traffic in high density areas. It would be difficult, but worth a debate in our major cities. My local paper this morning predicts 60 to 70 extra deaths this summer (in a city of about half a million) due to air pollution. Properly handled this should at least generate some public discussion. Rod Ken Hanly wrote: If there really is an emergency and people are convinced of that I don't see why rationing would not work. While I agree that public transportation should be supported, as long as the rich don't use it they will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts to subsidize a system they do not use. You are right of course about the growth of grey markets and black markets that still afford the well off superior treatment under rationing. THe same thing happens with our medicare system where doctors, and politicians jump queues or travel to the US but the system nevertheless works reasonably well--and would work much better if properly funded. If the rich are part of the rationing system then they have a stake in it and will be interested in seeing to it that it works. At least you show concern for the relative impact of policies on different income groups. Mark Jones apparently thinks this is fiddling while Rome burns. Jim Devine wrote: At 09:41 PM 06/27/2000 -0500, you wrote: 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. Rationing is only a defensive maneuver, one that eventually gets weak as the rich use their political connections and their ability to afford high illegal-market prices. Though it worked during WW 2 in the US, how long could it have lasted? Instead, the government should deal with the problem by increasing the amount and quality of public mass transit drastically, including getting many more of these natural-gas-driven wheelchair-friendly busses. Much of the expense can be covered by the gas tax. In general, the idea is to move toward the best W. European model. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: My looniness
Michael Perelman wrote: extreme poverty makes people take environmentally damaging actions. But nothing compared to us car-driving, air-conditioned people. You sound like the World Bank here, blaming deforestation on poor indigenes rather than rapacious corporate loggers. Do you really mean this? Doug
RE: My looniness
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
Re: RE: My looniness
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
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
My looniness (fwd)
Michael! how can you say this? I am not saying you mean it, but isn't it a racist common sense that, for example, Mexicans damage the environment more so regulary than white people, or let's say, from a capitalist point of view, working classes are less responsible towards environment than the rich. I hope I misunderstood your second statement.. Mine 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
