> >It is anybody´s wild guess when dollars will begin > > to obey the laws of > > nature. > > Andydownsouth
They do, once you ignore the spin that says otherwise. The winds of "free trade" quite naturally favour the ships with the biggest sails. "Free" market forces naturally drive goods towards those with excess liquidity away from those without. It's just that we're supposed to believe the opposite is true. Adam Smith said two merchants cannot sit down for a cup of coffee together without plotting against the public good, and I guess that's natural too. Which doesn't make it right. But of course you're right - so is Manolo. Chinese atmospheric N-tests in the late 70s were said to have killed babies in New York. http://www.nandotimes.com/healthscience/story/195828p-1880494c.html Nevada air pollution found to originate in Mongolian desert -- Christian Science Monitor Service , December 16, 2001 http://ens.lycos.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-31-07.html Ill Winds Carry Toxic Dust -- May 31, 2001 - Storms in places as distant as China and Africa have generated public attention with dust clouds that travel across oceans to North America, bringing with them living bacteria, fungi, heavy metals and other pollutants. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/nationworld/134286076_haze18.html Parts of U.S. seeing Asian dust storm; unusual haze expected to dissipate soon -- The Associated Press, April 18, 2001, DENVER - A dust storm that started in Mongolia and picked up industrial pollution from China has spread a haze across a quarter of the mainland United States, experts said yesterday. Etc etc. Manolo wrote: >the problem here that the sky puluted is not only owned by us citizens, and >the more afected by climate change are the citizens far awey the us, like >the ones afected by the mitch, or the starvation, on central america. Sadly, it's often the most vulnerable and innocent who seem to bear the brunt of it. >and still other problem, big american enterprises goes to contaminate >outside their bounderies where the polution and security laws are weak Yes, and big European and Japanese and Southeast Asian and other corporations also do that. Japanese companies deforest Southeast Asia, Southeast Asian companies deforest Africa and Latin America. >Sadly the very concept of currency allows the >accumulation of "unatural" amounts of wealth. Without >"chits" one would be unable to squirrel away more >wealth than one had a "natural" ability to spend >relativly soon after it was created/gathered. It is >also the concept of currency that allow some of the >most "physically" unproductive human beings to >accummulate wealth most easily. I speak from >experience as I have been both. > >I have also seen that we all have power that CAN be >used to facilitate incredable changes...but most >prefer to believe thay do not and so by proxy hand >that power over to those that most often, at least in >my opinion, deserve it the least. > >Dana Quite right - but "deserve" power, as if it's a reward, or a valuable commodity? Well yes, sure it is, but isn't that what's wrong? David Brin fantasized Ben Franklin saying this (in 'The Postman'): "It's said that 'power corrupts', but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power. When they do act, they think of it as service, which has limits. The tyrant, though, seeks mastery, for which he is insatiable, implacable." Huxley said only angels could cope with power responsibly, but they invariably refused to accept it. Or something like that. Which partly explains why people cede power to others, competent or not - it's because they're sane. Also because that's the purpose of the spin industry ("manufacturing consent" etc), and partly because they're reluctant to accept the extra responsibility. It's not just political power, it holds true much closer to home. A very common reaction to biodiesel is sheer disbelief that any ordinary Joe can make his own fuel without being a Seven Sister - can generate his own power without being a massive utility or a coal mine, and so on and on. But wouldn't you agree that there's always a significant minority that doesn't think nor act that way, which is capable of effecting the groundswell of change and (real) progress that's always required in a society? Olga Lange wrote: >I think there's an inherent problem with the whole idea of pollution >credits and the commodifcation of our entire environment. How have we >gotten to the point where we don't think it's absurd to charge rent for >the sky? Also, as to who owns the sky, "we all do"--that all is not just >homo sapiens. $1,000 checks for clams and koalas too? > >But if we're going to start charging rent, I've long felt that we should be >charging storage fees for the toxic wastes in our lungs. Hear hear! (Not just in our lungs.) Frankly I think the whole idea of the "Sky Trust" is half-assed, but I suppose it is at least an approach to the "Polluter pays" principle and a return to the commons, might help spread the idea a bit. Anyway, shouldn't it be calculated according to a person's eco-footprint? In which case biofuellers ought to get $2,000, fair's fair. Koalas don't have an eco-footprint, so they should get $3,000, and clams maybe $4,000, for all the human pollutants they filter out of the water every day and their negative contribution to noise pollution. Keith Addison Journey to Forever Handmade Projects Tokyo http://journeytoforever.org/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Access Your PC from Anywhere It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download. http://us.click.yahoo.com/zWCYWA/7XkDAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
