Hi Dennis,
I've split your message into two, this one resuming the original thread:
At 12:01 16/07/01 -0700, you wrote:
cut to:
(KH)
>>All right, let's discuss Realpolitik. Bush won't accept the Kyoto proposals
>>because he knows he will meet point-blank resistance from Congress. (This
>>is known as democracy.) Congress won't accept the need for the Kyoto
>>proposals because it knows that it will meet point-blank resistance from
>>the American electorate. (This is also known as democracy.) The American
>>electorate will refuse to contemplate the need for the Kyoto proposals
>>while there are still eminent climatologists who say that we have
>>insufficient evidence of the man-made causes of recent climate changes --
>>indeed, that the recent climate changes are nothing extraordinary in the
>>history of the earth. (This is also known as democracy.)
(DP)
>I fail to understand your position that democracy implies that
>everyone will take the most conservative positions on any given issue.
>You must be assuming that the electorate is ignorant of the issues
>and that no one is educating them.
I hadn't really thought about the electorate in terms of its conservatism
-- though I'm sure that this is so, except in times of emergency or (in
England, anyway), after periods of warfare. (The biggest legislative
changes here occurred after both World Wars-- when soldiers realised just
how stupid many of the officer-class were. That's why the electorate threw
out Winston Churchill as soon as the war ended.)
I gather that the cost of petrol is less than bottled water in many parts
of America, so I was just assuming that Americans would be even more fired
up than us by any increases in fuel costs, and would need irrefutable
evidence that it was necessary.
(DP)
>Perhaps things are different in Britian than in California where
>I live. We are having an energy crisis here because of some terribly
>bad decisions made in 1995. We deregulated the electric and gas
>utilities and set up new rules as provided by those same folks.
>The promise was that rates would fall by 10%.
I'm at a loss as to know what to reply here. In England, gas (that is, the
gaseous gas as used in domestic heating!) and electricity costs have come
down by about 10-20% since the state-run industry was privatised. Water
costs have gone up considerably (30-50%) since privatisation even though
more than half the staff have been made redundant. The reason for this is
that, besides profits, the new private water companies have had to make
substantial investments in badly needed water treatment plant. These had
been neglected by the industry when state-run. (This had the consequence
that raw sewage was pumped into the sea from cities and towns all round the
coast and holidaymakers were swimming in some of the foulest stuff
imaginable causing all sorts of illness. We had the worst beaches in Europe
by far.) But water prices seem to have stabilised now.
(DP)
>Instead, for the last year, the power generating companies have
>been using these new rules to up the cost of electricity by
>factors of x5, to x100. Finally, the State government stepped in
>and said, enough is enough. At least one of our major utilities
>has declared bankruptcy and another is threatening to. This after
>the utilities parent company siphoned off billions to pay their
>executives and shareholders.
>
>I don't think that the urge to deregulate will continue. The
>electorate is getting shafted and they are learning quickly.
>The State government is now led by a conservative Democrat
>rather than the Republican we had back in '95, although it
>was a Democratic legislature that approved the deregulation plan.
>
>In all, democracy is working now that the papers are filled
>with daily reports of what is happening, and why, and who is
>responsible.
>
>Californians now conserve energy better than most of the other states.
>We also recycle much of what can be done economically. We are not up
>to the standards of many EU countries and we need to improve, but
>we are way ahead of where we were a decade ago.
>
>So I say that democracy, coupled with media that are willing to
>educate the electorate, will produce results. California, with a
>population of over 30 million, and the fifth biggest economy in the
>world, is a big test bed for trying new concepts, both technically
>and politically. I think that progress can and will be made.
Contrary to what you write above, I had understood from the newspapers I
read over here (and the New York Times) that the deregulated power
companies in California were prevented from charging the retail prices
necessary to afford investment in new generating plant. There's a
discrepancy here between what I'm reading in the financial press and what
you write.
I hesitate to stick my neck out as to what will happen in other countries,
but I'm sure that privatisation will continue in America. You are certainly
doing so in the one area -- state education -- which interests me more than
any other.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
