>In message <p05010405b6efed996d8d@[216.254.77.128]>, Doug Henwood
><dhenwood at panix.com> writes, oxymoronically
>
>>Those outside the consensus shrink in number.
>
>But here I have to ask, have I passed through the looking glass?
>
>Presumably the consensus is so strong that the Kyoto agreement has been
>signed by everyone (not Rumania alone) and the US president has not
>denounced it.
>
>Presumably the consensus is so strong that Ralph Nader was mistaken when
>he told Newsnight last night that Kyoto would never have passed
>congress, being opposed by the overwhelming majority not just of
>republicans but also democrats.
>
>Presumably the consensus is so strong that individual Americans
>(including those on this list) have massively reduced their consumption
>of energy, not increased it by around ten per cent in the last ten
>years.
>
>Or perhaps, more likely, the consensus that energy consumption must be
>reduced is one of those religious beliefs that one never expects to be
>realised. Oh yes, Americans tell the rest of the world, its terrible
>having our standard of living, you really wouldn't want it you know.
>We'd give it up ourselves if we weren't so weak. Maybe you think the
>rest of us were born yesterday.
There certainly is no _political_ consensus to tackle global warming, & there can't be one in today's world. Capitalism can't live without M-C-M', production for the sake of production. It's a case of the ensemble of social relations foreclosing a political action based upon a scientific finding.
Yoshie