>james at communistbanker.com wrote:
>
>>Why is it that it's so often the same people who worry about destroying
>>the planet by burning oil AND worry about running out? If both are true,
>>shouldn't they celebrate the running out part, and not bother with
>>environmental politics at all? Doug has consistency in favour of his
>>approach to this.
>>
>>But all of the debate about climate change still hasn't produced a
>>consensus. Can't some of the petro-thusians take time out and tell us
>>what the alternative is? If we are going to have to switch from fossil
>>fuel reliance, how exactly will you manage the massive shift in living
>>patterns, the enforced parochialism of a world without cars, how will you
>>distribute the misery and impoverishment that it would cause? Just
>>saying that we MUST use less, that we MUST develop alternatives is not an
>>answer to this.
>>
>>
>IMHO - home-working/telecommuting on a much greater scale would greatly
>reduce oil consumption. What percentage
>of the work force sits in traffic for hours only to sit in front of a
>computer screen that they could just as easily have at home? -
>except of course for the need to massage the boss's ego.
>
>Owen
>===========================
I imagine it's a fairly small portion of the workforce that could do their job from home. Anyone have figures for this?
How much consensus do you want on climate change James? It will, of course, never be 100% but it's high enough now that only a fool would believe the naysayers, most of whom are in the service of industries who get the results they pay them for. How do you distribute the misery and impoverishment caused by capitalism? How did humanity manage the shift from feudalism to capitalism. From a pre-industrial to an industrial alignment of work? No one has said pointing out the problem, that we must use less, was the end of the equation. Most proponents of the Hubberts Peak hypothesis are well aware that we are not about to run out. The problem comes in when the peak is reached and output begins to fall. Ramping up extraction to compensate for no new fields coming into play will only make the downside steeper but that is what will probably happen. There is no reliable way to tell how people will react to a problem they have not faced. I don't believe there will be a catastrophe or panic associated with a decline but I may be wrong. I don't expect it to be pleasant for everyone or equally inconvenient for everyone either. The issue of climate change may make that prediction wrong however. If near to the worst case scenarios for climate change come true the massive dislocation of peoples and necessary farming changes could be catastrophic. The shift to capitalism was very painful for a large part of the population. Why should this shift be fundamentally different? Because the US has a strong belief in a solid safety net to help people in need? Because of the history of the US's ability to successful implement long-range planning? It seems to me the solutions necessary are going to be unprofitable, unpopular and implemented by the Govt. something 'mericans don't take to very well. We'll fuck around with trying to find some free-market profit making solution and simply make the problems worse than they need to be. Then we'll blame the victims for not being prepared enough.
John Thornton