Hello again MM > >Duh, yes. Focusing on Hubbert's Peak commonly leads to that omission. > >Mere substitution of fossil fuels is not the answer. But if you > >consider climate change, the need for reduction is obvious. > >So long as we have something like political-economic systems that are oriented >to the idea that one can place "increased demand" on the system and simply pay >more and suppliers will build more supply, then I don't see much way, by a >simple market system, to curb the appetite for energy. I am open to >suggestion >as to how the system should be changed, or guided, in reaction to what is a >worldwide economic and environmental threat. I think innovation is more >important, and harder, at this basic level of addressing: how do we set up a >system that can have some internalized "cognizance" of precautionary >principles >without sacrificing principles of freedom. > >Some advocates of discussion of worldwide-disaster enviro issues are doing in >order to call for some curb on freedom, or without proper respect >for freedom's >value. > >So, advocates of freedom develop the idea that all enviro discussions are just >there as a pretext to attack freedom without regard for its value, >and they, in >turn, are sometimes shallow and refuse to acknowledge the science or need for >caution that science seems to imply. > >So, I think the hard innovation will come when we can figure out a way to get >our system to respond better to pressing worldwide environmental issues, *if* >they're genuine, without sacrificing hegemony of nations or >individuals. And it >would be nice if we could have a discussion of this and figure it out sometime >before 2414 or whenever. > >These are my tentative opinions anyway. I think an opposite case >could be made >that freedom is freedom and screw the calls for global enviro concern because >they can't be consistent with freedom. > >Since no one I see or hear seems to be discussing any of this, I'm a >bit at odds >to form a clear opinion, though I can do so, it would be nice to see if anyone >else sees the issues as I do. I think it's much easier to do a global >scientific research project than it is to figure out the best philosophic >political way to approach how to revise (if at all) our system, and >whether it's >even appropriate to speak of revision on a macro scale, where hegemonous >countries and hegemonous individual human beings are involved.
Freedom of whom? I think you might find that people arguing for freedom vs environmental responsibility are in fact arguing for *corporate* freedom, not individual freedom, though they might think that's what they're arguing for. Some guy posted a message here a while back attacking us for being anti Big Oil, IIRC, saying if the likes of us had our way poor old Big Oil would suffer the same dreadful and undeserved fate as Big Tobacco. I think I've quoted this before, from tvo: "Small-scale capitalism works out fine, but as scale increases the departure from real capitalism becomes more pronounced---profits are privatized, but costs are socialized. The attendant repair and maintenance are left to succeeding generations if possible, if not, to present low and middle income taxpayers." The departure from democracy also becomes more pronounced - big corporations are not democratic, they're autocratic, and arguably anti-democratic. Keep it small and local, and the argument vanishes, IMO - neither freedoms nor the environment are likely to be threatened, or not beyond remedy at any rate. For the most part I don't have much more time for Big Enviro than I have for any other kind of Big. Big just ain't beautiful. Big, centralized, top-down is mainly what causes these problems. Small, decentralized, local is human, and manageable. "In the Industrial World small businesses account for more technological advances in their areas of expertise than government supported researchers or research departments in massive corporations." - Steve Troy, Sustainable Village. I never asked him for his references for that, but I'm sure he could provide them. As for national hegemony, it's the poorest countries with the lowest per capita energy consumption, only fractions of a percent of those in the US, that will pay the most heavily for the disproportionate US share in causing global warming. Would you call that freedom? If the opposite were true and they were dumping on you like you're dumping on them, would you call it freedom? Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ 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/
