no in absolute terms they are plainly not. Are we anywhere near the end of them, no, I think the evidence is that we are nowhere near it. But even if it was in sight, they are no use in the ground, are they? Foregoing new exploration makes no sense at all.
>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?
I expect socialism will involve greater use of natural resources, not less.
>
>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.
I'm very interested to hear that, since elsewhere on this thread, that idea has been dismissed by Doug H. The question, I think, is whether that is a good thing.
> 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.
Another way to look at this would be that Carter achieved his goal of making working class people pay for the crisis, and, in effecting a slow down in working class consumption, released greater resources for capital. But I'm intrigued that you think that the subsequent Republican government's boosted consumption. I thought that they held down wages.
>
>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.
I can see your point, but I am not persuaded that you can make electricity more expensive without making everything else more expensive. Big consumers of energy would include hospitals, homes, farms, computers etc etc.
> That's the fallacy of the mindset that environmentalism will ruin
>the economy;
No, I'm sure that capitalism does not need any help ruining the economy, but environmentalism might be providing an intellectual rationalisation of that.
>
>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.
Call me naive, but I tend to think that people ought to be deciding for themselves what improved standard of living is. No doubt people would make different choices under different pressures, but I'm not sure that we would all opt for an abstemious and healthy life-style if we were liberated from capitalist exigencies.
-- James Heartfield