>
>> 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?
A quick google search hows 14 million jobs - 11% of the US work force - can be done from "remote locations" - the study is about outsourcing to third world countries - but I would suggest that they are the same jobs.
Link: http://staff.haas.berkeley.edu/kroll/Kroll%20Audit%20Comm%20051904.pdf Owen
>
> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk