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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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.
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
