And why would Nader's opposition to high consumer oil prices (I assume this is your reference, although I'm not familiar with his actual statement) be prima facie anti-environmental (which I assume is your implication)? One might ask such questions as: "Would the class that benefits from this particular rise in oil prices be expected to favor a drop in net oil consumption?" and, "Might we expect that a sudden rise in oil prices will result in a meaningful decrease in oil consumption, given the current social relations of consumption and production?" And although I can't pull out the stats, I'm pretty confident that the answers are, "No," and "No."
One would hope that we wouldn't accept a formulation such as "High oil prices = good for environment" on some sort of simplistic supply-and-demand grounds. Compare it to the standard social democratic idea behind favoring high oil prices. The assumption: High petroleum prices will favor the environment (and society in general) when the resulting revenues are socialized through the tax structure--either positively, by using a punitive usage tax, or negatively, by refusing to over-subsidize oil consumption (excessive highway construction, tax breaks for oil explorers and producers, etc.) The resulting revenue can then be used to develop alternative fuels, to subsidize public transportation, to enforce environmental regulation, or even (remember this?) to spend on general social welfare to encourage economic equality, giving power to those who might view the environment as more than an externality. And this is to be enforced by policies that extend over some time, so that non-subsidized oil can be accepted as a predictable part of the social landscape.
Needless to say (problems of the efficacy of social democracy aside), none of this applies today in these United States of America. The largesse is being funneled to the pockets of the capitalist ruling class-a particularly crude and rapacious segment of the ruling class, to be sure, but not so crude and rapacious as to subsidize the socialization of oil revenue. Where is the elasticity in the petroleum market that will allow a quick downturn in consumption to match the quick jacking of the price? Will we just shut off more furnaces in the Northeast? Will the highways suddenly fill with bikes? Will oil-fueled industries start hoisting up solar panels?
>From: Brad De Long <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: RE: Gore, budget-cutter...
>Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:44:19 -0700
>
>>
>>Laura D'Andrea Tyson, who previously served as chief economic adviser
>>to the Clinton administration and is now dean of the business school
>>at the University of California at Berkeley, said on Tuesday that a
>>good measure of government's size and economic influence was its debt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Laura Tyson, meet James Buchanan. I guess we shouldn't
>>be surprised. They already confirmed Doug's buddy Jude
>>Wanniski's explanation of the Great Depression (it was
>>the Smoot-Hawley tariff, didn't you know), and Charles
>>Murray's analysis of poverty.
>>
>>The logic here is that the greater one's negative net
>>worth, the more power accrues. Hence if the Gov divests
>>itself of liabilities or accumulates assets, it weakens
>>itself. On the bright side, this means my pathetic
>>financial condition is steering me towards the pinnacle
>>of strength. Anthony Robbins, call our office.
>>
>>She would never get away with this if that Brad DeLong
>>were still alive . . .
>>
>>Are you sure you wanna vote for this . . . oh never mind.
>>
>>mbs
>
>I'm speechless...
>
>I guess I can't say any more that the Green Party candidate calling
>for lower oil prices was the nadir of the campaign...
>
>Brad DeLong
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.