> Cheap mass transportation means that working class people have more use
> values. If you distort market pricing to represent a guesstimate of
> the 'costs of environmental damage' then you will price certain
> consumer goods out of the reach of the working class. Regardless of
> the merits of the environmentalist case, raising prices is not
> progressive, and it implies that the problem is that consumers just
> don't get it.
And creating a crisis environmentally so that everyone can have an SUV is progressive? Your main concern seems to be that working class people should be given the tools to create their own hardships in the future. It is the working class and poor that are going to feel the pinch if water shortages or price spikes are caused by rainfall pattern disruptions. If farmland begins begins being taken out of production faster than new land can be reclaimed and food prices escalate much faster than wages poor and working class people will bear the brunt of that too. And if utility rates jump because of climate change well the working class will just have to cut down on food even more to be able to afford their SUV's and A/C cooled suburban homes. Sounds like a progressive utopia. Where do I sign up?
> I'm a socialist of the 'give the people what they want' tendency.
>
> James Greenstein
Not if what they want is unsustainable. Suppose I had a portable low cost (practically free) nuclear generator that when installed in someones home would produce power for one-twentieth the current cost. Should we all have one and fuck the consequences for future generations when it comes to waste disposal? I want unlimited choices now damn it, stop oppressing me! I'm still waiting for one of the environmental nay-sayers on this list to send me something reputable that refutes the work of the IPCC or the AIP or some equally rigorous body of work done by others. No one has done so yet.
John Thornton