> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jon louis mann > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 6:37 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Conservation > > http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=663&tst > amp=200705 > > it seems like most countries are more concerned about > balance of trade policies than in protecting the > environment. governments tend to operate to favor > whoever is in power. we need new models. in the west > we raise interest rates as a means of slowing the > economy and thus combating inflation; yet, the > principle argument against an energy tax is that it > would be a drag on the economy. we should use energy > tax policy in the same way that we use interest rates.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, monetary policy has been used instead of fiscal policy because it works faster. Most economists think that correcting business cycles requires actions that are significantly faster than the time frame of the effects of fiscal policy (measured in years). Monetary policy can have an effect in 3-6 months. Second, do we really want to eliminate the energy tax during recessions? >nor is it realistic > to expect government to resist the influence of the > corporate lobbies. eventually we may succeed in > slowing down the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses > after the damage is irrevocable. then nature may > reach a new equilibrium and life will adapt. Except, if you listen to corporate ads and statements, you will see that they have now gotten on board....thinking there will be plenty of money to be made in alternative energies. If a new technology actually provides something that's affordable and desired, someone will find a way to make a lot of money selling it. IMHO, the problem is that there are no cost efficient technologies. >the costs and repercussions of reducing habits using energy from an > economy based on planned obsolescence to one based on > limits and an environmentally friendly policy would be > far less disruptive to our planet. when the rest of > the world starts to consume at our conspicuous level > then the consequence will be extreme collapse, unless > means are found to implement cleaner technology and > less waste. i agree that we need to conserve energy > and and reduce our use of non-renewable sources of > energy if society is to become sustainable. If you look at the changes in the US economy over the last 40 years or so, you will see that it is a lot less dependant on the use of massive resources. It's been decades since smokestack America was the basis for our economy. Now, the hot new items are portable computers and ipods. Service has become a large share of the economy. The increase in per capita energy use in the US has been slow. I'd venture, but don't have the time to prove right now, that if you subtract the massive need for energy for computers, we've actually used less energy per capita. The difficulty is that a smokestack economy is a stepping stone to where we are. >countries > like china and india can lead the way by not emulating > the west. china with its central government has the > power to develop new approaches for energy, > communication, transportation, distribution, > consumption, education, agriculture and > industrialization in general if they are willing to > abandon the capitalistic model. Well, if they abandon the capitalistic model, there won't be much of a problem because growth will slow. Look at the correlation of the change in models in India and the improvement in the economy. >countries like cuba > have been forced to rely on organic farming and herbal > medicines because of the embargo. I'll agree that it is possible, in an impoverished police state, to use far less advanced resources. But, their land use is far less efficient than elsewhere. Anyways, what does organic farming and herbal medicines have to do with countering global warming? The cost of using them on a massive scale would be so high that it would be a very inefficient way to decrease energy use. > the scandinavian countries > use their resources to benefit all of society rather > than a select few so better models do exist. Well, from what my co-workers in Norway have told me, the Scandinavian countries are fairly homogeneous with a fairly rigid strongly enforced social order. I remember being shocked to hear the wife of a technician describe the US as "the land of opportunity." Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
