> On 1/11/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> > Gar wrote:
> >
> > > We live further from work and that is not something that will
> > > change in the short run.
> >
> > That's exactly what needs to change in the United States, and it has
> > to change soon, or else humanity won't have "a long run" to look
> > forward to.
> >
> > How do we change that? By moving businesses as well as workers back
> > to cities. How do we move them? There are essentially two ways:
> >
> > The government will move them, by employing eminent domain.
> >
> > or
> >
> > Businesses and workers will move on their own, motivated by higher
> > transportation costs.
> >
> > Neither way is painless.
> >
> > > Ten dollar a gallon gas will save energy in the short run mainly
> > > by hurting poor and working people.
> >
> > The higher gas price will hurt a majority of workers in the short
> run
> > -- there is no doubt about it. They will have to make a trade-off:
> > one one hand, their standard of living will go down in the short
> > term; on the other hand, their short-term sacrifice will buy
> time, so
> > that they, their children, and other people's children will have "a
> > long term" on earth, and so that they will be in a better bargaining
> > position vis-a-vis capital, which, too, will get less mobile due to
> > higher transportation costs.
> >
> > There is one silver lining. The poorest of the poor, already
> carless
> > and stuck in cities (which was graphically demonstrated by Katrina),
> > can stay put and welcome back businesses and their fellow workers.
> >
> > Yoshie Furuhashi
> > <http://montages.blogspot.com>
> > <http://monthlyreview.org>
>
> Guess I don't have the will power to read this stuff and not reply.
> Plenty of the poorest of the poor live in rural, suburban and edge
> cities. And massive movements of people takes time.
<snip>
> Any reconfiguration of U.S. demographics has to be gradual - at
> least comparatively.
Who says it can be done overnight? The point is, however, that it has to be done, or else we won't have any future at all. The fastest we can manage is probably still too slow to make a necessary difference, but it seems to me that there is no excuse for not trying, considering the worst case scenario. An argument that what costs a majority of workers can't or shouldn't be done is essentially an argument for not doing anything substantial to slow down if not reverse climate change, for there is no solution that doesn't hurt them economically in a short run.
A couple of decades of cheap oil lured businesses, home builders, and homeowners into quickly sprawling outward -- that at least needs to change, and change soon. For that to happen, gas has to go up enough to motivate them to pull back. The current relative scarcity of oil -- due to the shortage of refining capacity (caused by the preceding era of cheap oil), a rise of global demand (led by accelerated development of China, etc.), instability thanks to US wars and interventions, etc. -- is not enough to push up the price for a long term. The present trend will continue for a while, and then eventually China and/or the US will slow down economically, bring down demand, and make oil cheaper again. Therefore, we need to create a political will to collectively pay the price for environmental sustainability while there is a good deal of interest among the populace to do so, like now.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>