> most countries seem more concerned about > balance of trade policies than in protecting the > environment. governments tend to favor > whoever is in power. we need new models. in the > west we raise interest rates as a means to slow the > economy own, thus combating inflation the > principle argument against an energy tax is that it > would be a drag on the economy. we should tax > energy like we manipulate 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? *dan, do you have any suggestions for monetary *policies to act faster? *one advantage of the high cost of energy is it *forces changes in the marketplace for conservation. *i would prefer profits to be taxed, so the burden is *shared. jlm > 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. *i agree that corporate capitalists are getting more *involved BECAUSE they smell a buck. can we be *certain that they are not doing so to corner the *market, like when they bought up the right of way *and eliminated alternate means of transportation *to the internal combustion engine as in the *documentary, "who killed the electric car"? *the whole idea of planned obsolescence is to control *the marketplace so people have to replace items, *use more oil, etc. scarcity creates more demand for *diminishing supply, and higher profit. this is one of *the messages in the movie, "tucker", and huxley's *novel, "brave new world". jlm >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 dependent 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. *i'll take your word for it, dan, but do we have to *repeat the mistakes of the past, especially in asia *with their huge populations? service and information *industries contribute to more leisure, but we still need to produce those toys that fuel our lifestyle. *technology got us into this mess and i think we are *due for a leap forward such as toffler talks about. *it is critical that we reduce our use of non renewable *sources of energy rather than find more eficient ways *to mine for it. we replace precious habitats with *radiata pine, mega farms and pastures, etc. can't we *find ways to live in harmony with our planet? *one can say that the measure of a civilization is how *much energy we use. i say it is how we acquire and *use energy. jlm > 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. *what i am advocating is restricting corporate and *state capitalist models. i am okay with individual *private enterprise that do not pollute. jlm > 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. *what if our energy was put into food production *instead of war? could we come up with biotech *that was healthy for all forms of life? do we really *need to ship out of season food all over the world? *jlm > 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. *exactly, and the opportunity for some individuals *to accumulate vast wealth is reducing opportunity for middle class *opportunities. i would much prefer america to have a similar *distribution of wealth as norway and new zealand. jlm ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
