The Radster comments:
>Heartfield sees the green movement as anti-development, but >what are the
>chances that, under a capitalist world regime, an anti->development
movement
>will take hold? Capitalists don't make money from anti->development, so
far
>as I can see.
I don't think it's development vs. anti-development.
One of the biggest ways US companies could boost productivity would be to move to the level of energy efficiency in Japan (instead of periodically figuring out ways to fire more people, even if it means hiring them back in some way with less pay to do all the work).
There are all sorts of business opportunities in saving our planet and making it more livable and sustainable.
Even if the oil companies who pay good money for access to our 'leaders' don't want it, energy efficiency would actually help the bottom line of most all other types of companies.
And, there could be huge markets for a company that could help in stablizing and restoring destroyed environments so people could live in them and produce food or forest products. This is often more important to countries than putting aside natural reserves. Without sustainable agriculture and local economies, people will press in on the reserves anyway, out of desperation. Moreover, much of the reserve movement has just created zoos so large that they can't be managed.
Then there is recycling. One reason why it's so cheap to extract stuff new instead of recycle, STILL, is because of the use of cheap oil to do all the work of extraction.
I wouldn't hold my breath, however polluted the air, waiting for 'dynamic' and 'innovative' US capitalism to lead the way.
Anyone work at a ISO 14000 rated company?
Charles Jannuzi