>Below, Patrick Ellis sets out the environmental campaign for a voluntary
>reduction in consumption. Such campaigns are old hat (and generally not
>as voluntary as they seem).
An interesting perspective, and one that in a lot of ways rings true, but it still begs the question of whether such "reductions" are really a loss. And in truth if we don't adhere to the simplest of these practices we are indeed wanton destroyers of the environment. Being vilified for such is simply the price one pays for accepting that role out of generally sheer laziness.
While it may be fine & good to reject the wheezy proclamations of Mr. Heath, et al, do you really think fossil resources are inexhaustible, that global warming is not accelerating as a consequence of over-reliance on fossil fuels, or that sucking up fossil fuels at whatever clip one desires is doing anything but supporting the capitalist system?
>In point of fact, they very rarely have a direct effect on consumption
>but serve the ideological purpose of persuading people to take personal
>responsibility for capitalism (not nature)'s limits. Once softened up,
>all are prepared for cuts in wages.
I can't speak for Mr. Heath's attempts to manipulate the coal miners, but I do believe Mr. Carter's attempts to make us all a bit more conscious of our energy use did in fact have an effect on consumption and conservation. A bit short-lived, to be sure, but that's not too surprising given the subsequent counter efforts in that regard by Mssr's Reagan, Bush, Clinton, & Bush.
>(Or to use Charles Brown's terminology, if the rate of profit (P') is
>given by surplus value (S) divided by wages and constant capital (C+V)
>combined, then the fall in P' consequent on a rise in C can be offset by
>a reduction in V.)
Or a simple acceptance of a fall in P? Yes, I dream...
However, the things I propose would in large part only affect the energy sector negatively and would in fact spur other sectors of the economy. That's the fallacy of the mindset that environmentalism will ruin the economy; there's a hell of a lot of new product to be made to change out our inefficient systems for efficient ones.
>I guess I'll leave the theologically minded amongst you to work out the
>difference between a reduction in the standard of living and a reduction
>in the standard of living.
Hey, I'm all with you that it's a "reduction in the standard of living," in the currently construed meaning of that term. But try using something other than the capitalist model of "access to goods" and instead look at the full quality of life, you might understand why so many of us see an improvement in our "standard of living" through better use of resources.
Patrick