I tend to believe in "minimum regret" decision-making. Which choice from
the menu of choices faced is the one, if all goes wrong is, the choice I
would regret the least. Its a conservative approach.
Applied to the energy area (by me at least) would be to go slow with energy
use and extraction until we have more facts. If we are wrong, well then we
have the next million years to burn up fossil fuels. If we are right then
we have set in place a first step on dealing with what turns out to be a
scarce resource that has some negative impacts such as global warming.
arthur cordell
-----Original Message-----
From: Edward R Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: September 27, 2000 7:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Price or policy?
Keith Hudson appears to be proposing some form of direct democracy -
dispensing with the intermediary politicians and letting the public as a
whole decide via referenda. He has answered an already complex question
with an even more complex one. What the state should do is lay the
question, with all of its nuances, before the public and it will then
somehow come up with the answer.
Apart from the question of whether the public, no matter how saturated with
information, is actually capable of understanding complex issues, this
raises the question of whether there in fact is a "public". There are, I
would suggest, a large variety of publics, each operating out of particular
interests. Keith uses the example of the Corn Laws. They were repealed in
the mid-nineteenth century because urban industrial interests, which needed
cheap food to feed their labour (and the reserve army of the unemployed
which kept wages down) had so ascended in power in comparison with landed
interests, that repeal was possible. There was a breaking point: up until
then, repeal was not possible because landed corn-growing interests were
still dominant.
Take the present situation. Put the question of whether energy prices
should rise or fall (via lowering taxes or holding the line) before the
public and all those groups with a passion for the environment and fearful
of global warming would vote one way whereas the drivers of trucks and
suburban assault vehicles (SUVs) would likely vote another. Moreover, many
of the voters would be organized, belonging to unions, associations, or
interest groups. Their leaders and persuaders would not study the pros and
cons of an issue, they would be too busy worrying about how they could get
the vote out. Besides, they would already be convinced of the answer.
There is also the matter of uncertainty. How do we really know what is
going on in the energy picture? Many so-called experts maintain that there
is no shortage of the resource - the oil sheiks are withholding production
and manipulating price. Others say that we are seeing a precursor of the
end of cheap hydrocarbons, and that the remaining supply is not nearly as
abundant as it is assumed to be. Even the experts don't really know, so how
can one expect the referendized public to make a rational decision?
What this suggests to me is that we need honest politicians who, after
having taken a lie-detector test, will says something like "We really don't
know, but here is what we think and because of this and that, and here is
the action (or lack of it) that we are going to take." But then of course
trying to implement a system with politicians that honest would be even more
difficult than implementing direct democracy.
Ed Weick
(613) 728-4630
Visit my website: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 3:22 PM
Subject: RE: Price or policy?
> Arthur,
>
> At 09:31 26/09/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >The debate over high fuel prices doesn't give one much confidence on how
we
> >will deal with
> >a. future shortages, as we really begin to run down reserves
> >b. cutting back to deal with global warming.
> >
> >As Keith said, some sort of rationing will be necessary. How in a
> >consumerist democracy will this come about? What politician will commit
> >political suicide to trade off present pleasure for future gains, except
in
> >times of national emergency? And if its a true national emergency, won't
it
> >indicate that we have left things go to far?
>
> You ask: 'How in a consumerist democracy will this come about?' Quite
> simply, the answer lies in a fundamental change in our political system.
>
> Our present type of party system developed historically when there were
> relatively few serious issues at any one time. And for each one of these
> issues there was usually a clear Yes or No involved. A good example from
> English history is the issue of the Corn Laws (protective tariffs against
> cheaper grain for the working man). According to their interests,
everybody
> lined up unambiguously on one side or the other. So, in most developed
> countries we arrived at a fairly simple adversarial situation with usually
> two main parties, even in those countries with proportional voting. The
> result of this is that, because we now have a multitide of complex modern
> problems, the elections manifestos of each of the main parties has a huge
> plank of policies which is hoped to be popular with nary a policy which
> might bring bad news.
>
> But the electorate is quite capable of deciding on difficult issues if the
> relevant information is presented to them. For example, in one US State
> (I've forgotten which), the public were able to decide on an extremely
> difficult problem: the prioritisation of different types of hospital
> treatment in the public health services. In England, the issue of
> prioritisation usually occurs behind closed doors by "experts". The
result?
> Repeated controversies and huge disparities in treatment between one part
> of the country and another.
>
> As mentioned before, every single thoughtful motorist in England knows
full
> well that we can't keep on building roads for ever unless we want to
detroy
> the countryside completely, that the petrol/diesel-driven car/lorry is
> enormously polluting, that new forms of transportation must be developed
in
> the next decade or two, and so on and so on. Yet every time a government
of
> whatever political party tries to suggest one remedy or another, such as
> high fuel taxes, toll roads, etc, etc. it meets with a storm of protest
> which paralyses legislation.
>
> When will politicians learn that the way to answer this and other similar
> problems is to lay out all the information that's potentially available in
> order to stimulate real public discussion, and then to call a referendum
as
> to the various alternative solutions that have emerged? This is the true
> form of democracy in the modern complex age.
>
> But no! Present-day politicians (with complacent civil services quietly
> supporting them) do not want to jettison their present comfortable
> institutions, perks and jobs, such as our dinosauric House of Commons
(and,
> for a considerable number of MPs during the summer, foreign "study" trips
> to exotic places).
>
> Yes, the answer is quite simple: we need new types of specialised forums,
> with subsequent referenda on issues, not elections of parties which seek
to
> be popular with every item on their agendas. Unfortunately, human
> institutions take generations to adapt to new conditions and I fear it
will
> be the same in modern times -- issues will be decided by crises and rather
> crude outbursts by the public instead of by informed debate. In the case
of
> fuel tax protests in England, Wales and Scotland a couple of weeks ago,
the
> whole country came to within a day of grinding completely to a halt except
> for emergency services. In the case of Mad Cow Disease, information was
> smothered for several years by the civil services and politicians, and
> nothing was done until people actually started dying in the most
> distressing way it is possible to imagine.
>
> Keith Hudson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Arthur Cordell
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: September 25, 2000 4:27 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Price or policy?
> >
> >
> >Keith Hudson wrote:
> >> The main problem (at least in the UK) is that no-one has an accurate
idea
> >> of what are the costs of different transport and energy systems.
> >
> >This is an excuse for continuing to do nothing. What *is* known is that
> >the costs of the *present* transport and energy systems (fossil fuels)
> >are MUCH HIGHER than what consumers are paying for fuels today. Adjust
> >the fuel prices to the actual costs (environmental, public health and
> >infrastructure damages) *first*, and then talk about the costs of
> >alternatives.
> >
> >Anyway, due to the catastrophic effects of CO2 on the global climate,
> >phasing out fossil fuels would be necessary even *before* the last
> >reserves are consumed.
> >
> >In this context it is terribly ironic that Mr. "Earth in the Balance"
> >(Al Gore) is advocating to deplete the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
> >in order to lower oil prices.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
