new.morning wrote: >--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>And if you could own an electric car that 20 minute drive would not >>contribute much if anything at all to pollution (it will generate some >>heat). >> >> > >The production of electricity to run the car produce pollution, as do >the transmission and distribution lines to get it to you (EMF, sight >pollution, etc.) as do the disposal of the massive batteries needed >for EVs. But overall, EVs produce less pollution than many cars. >Probably more than per capita mile of mass transit, when you include >in the huge pollution of building roads and highways. (Large 300-800 >MW power plants have great economies of scale for cost of production, >and polltution control, relative to small, mobile generators, e.b. cars.) > > > >>Capitalism may well turn out to be the biggest threat to humanity. >> >> > >Thats quite a huge and illogigical leap. Capitalism will produce an >abundance of low-polluting cars, homes and technologies, IF it is >given correct price signals that incorporate all costs of fuels. If >gasoline, as well as fuels for power plants, included their full costs >for pollution --- and the costs for a highly concentrated, energy >society, and unreliable foreign sources -- probably around $3-4/gal, >then you would see a huge and rapid shift to low polluting cars at >60-100 mph, and low pollution homes, offices and industrial buildings >-- and the nergy that feeds them. > > > But so might a socialist consortium so your argument doesn't stand up.
>What is a huge threat to society is mercantilism, cronyism, >oligarchies of entrenchd powers, low-demoncractic societies >(especially those that pose as high democratic ones), corrupt lobbying >practices, corrupt campaign financing (both of which contribute to >your examples of bad social choices) -- and socialsm. Look at eastern >Europe, and Russia if you want to see the horrendous effect of >socialsim on pollution. > > > That's what I mean. But we may need to look at the whole of capitalism to get the ball rolling. I'm not opposed to small business but opposed to corporatism and the vanity many CEO's have that they can manage them. BTW, Russia has been running with a capitalist oligarchy for over 10 years. >What are you suggesting or proposing as an alternative to capitalism? >Clearly not socialism given its horrid effect on the environment and >pollution. Worker-owned collectives? Perhaps. But they still need >large resources of funds to produce "big things" like an EV >manufacturing, distribution, and mantenance infrastructures. Capital >markets, in a true democratic society (far from wht the US is) are >quite efficient and equitable in raising such funds, aka capital. > > > > Last time I looked things like cars were assembled from products that could be easily produced from smaller companies (and often are) so you don't need big companies. Don't condemn socialism just because there have been bad implementations of it. I think you just don't want to see the ball rolling in that direction. Sorry, but I think it already is as some of my conservative friends fear because the capitalists did get out of control and society being what it is will backlash harshly the other direction. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
