I think that those messages came before the changes were made. I hope that we
are ok now.
GBK wrote:
> But I do keep receiving messages!
> This time when I finaly got connected I've got more than 100 of them. What
> is wrong?
>
> Boris
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Perelman <[E
You have Yeltsin here? Cool.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
- Original Message -
From: "GBK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:45 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:20935] Re: Re: Re: energy crises
But I do keep receiving messages!
This time
Max Sawicky wrote:
> I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become
> sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into
> developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money
> to be made, coordination problems aside. To me
> that's more likely than green consciousness leading
> to revo
Brad deLong wrote:
> Ummm
Brad, you may end being known as the man who put the 'um' in
'dumb'. Do you suppose Simon's bet with Ehrlich is safe ground for you
to stand on? You too, simply have no idea what the issue is.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Nordhaus knows more math than the freshman.
Eugene Coyle wrote:
> What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
> "the market will solve the problem"?
>
> Gene Coyle
>
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > Nordhaus assumed that there would always be an available "backstop"
> >
>Bill Burgess wrote:
>
>> Sent: 28 June 2000 00:58
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [PEN-L:20785] Re: Re: energy crises
>>
>>
>> I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
>> undeniable that
>> better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
>> non
> Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your
sang-froid, the point I was
> making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to
the contrary,
You're doing a good job.
This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note.
By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do
a
/CrashList
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: 27 June 2000 22:05
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
>
> >It might take several million years
At last, some wisdom. Yes, we are fucked. And yes, without linking the
future of fossil to to the future of greenhouse, it's impossible to make
sense of anything. We "socialists" better get our skates on. Altho actually
it's most likely already too late, so continue with your reveries and
general
Jim, much as I like you (I do, as a tireless intellectual, of a certain
sort) I don't really give a damn whether you believe me (now) or not. You
soon will do, in any case. But don't take my word, check it out yourself. PV
is not a substitute for oil. There is no substitute for oil. Anyone who say
Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary,
which shows that if you sractch some pen-lers, you find a Samuelson or an
Adelman ('resources are infinite.. the planet has no need of them... oil is
At 02:40 PM 6/27/00 -0700, you wrote:
>What's the difference between Nordhaus' theory and Freshman NC econ --
>"the market will solve the problem"?
it fits with freshman NC, though I think Nordhaus was being Schumpeterian
-- and was open to the idea of the gov't helping the market. But then
aga
>It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking. What are
the
>alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
>because they are not alternatives)
Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what
exactly are you expecting? Of course, if
13 matches
Mail list logo
