Um, no, that's exactly what I argued would *not* be expected here. Check it out; maybe start with the stuff around the part that goes, "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."
Oil isn't Screaming Yellow Zonkers, some commodity that can be dropped or substituted when the price suddenly gets jacked. And there's certainly no reason to expect that the segments of the ruling class who benefit from the rise in oil prices will just sit around and watch their profits go away if there's "a shift in our technology" (how? when?) *away* from "a direction that burns a hell of a lot of oil."
Here's the whole thing.
******
"I guess I can't say any more that the Green Party candidate calling for lower oil prices was the nadir of the campaign..."
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?
----- Original Message ----- From: Brad DeLong <delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 5:47 PM Subject: RE: Gore, budget-cutter...
> >"I guess I can't say any more that the Green Party candidate calling
> >for lower oil prices was the nadir of the campaign..."
> >
> >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
>
> Because low prices mean high consumption, and a shift in our
> technology in a direction that burns a hell of a lot of oil.
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>