> >do you really think fossil resources are inexhaustible,
>
>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.
Unless 1) you'd like to leave that choice to future generations who may need them more or would more cherish the unspoiled land, 2) you believe that bring them up and burning them contributes to global warming, and 3) you think we're using damn well enough right now already.
>I expect socialism will involve greater use of natural resources, not
>less.
That's a shame. I'd like to think that collectively we could better manage our resources than a bunch of individuals looking only to improve their finances. But let's just say you're right. Seems to me that's a good argument for not burning them now.
>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.
The point here seems not so much one of energy use or not, but rather a litmus test of political purity. OK, do I think the working class is manipulated for the benefit of capital? Of course. That hardly changes the fact that I think we should stop wasting energy as we do.
>But I'm intrigued that you think that the subsequent Republican
>government's boosted consumption. I thought that they held down wages.
Until very recently gasoline prices in the US were at their lowest point in real terms since sometime around when I got my driver's license in 1971. In the US we seem to do a very good job of keeping low wages from negatively affecting consumption. Something to do with the ready availability of credit I gather.
>I am not persuaded that you can make
>electricity more expensive without making everything else more
>expensive.
Reduced use of electricity would result in excess supply, which should result in lower prices, and lower profits for the energy barons. Now they're of course very good at manipulating supply into false shortages so as to not let their profits slip too far, but in the end I still fail to see how this argument means anything against global warming. It's like saying we shouldn't raise wages because that'll raise prices--there's a greater issue involved than the price of my new blender.
>No, I'm sure that capitalism does not need any help ruining the economy,
>but environmentalism might be providing an intellectual rationalisation
>of that.
Which of course is why the most capitalist nation in the world refuses to grapple with the most important environmental issue we face? Eh?
>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.
Surely not. Nonetheless, you propose a standard of living measured merely by access to goods. If that ain't a capitalist definition I can't imagine what is. All I'm proposing is that things like avoiding environmental disaster are at least as much a part of what makes for a good standard of living as the ability to buy a new DVD player. You can weigh your belief in that impending disaster as you choose, but shouldn't that be part of the formula?
Patrick