******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
On Nov 24, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Eugene Coyle <eugeneco...@igc.org> wrote: > This post by Joseph Green, well done, points out to me what narrow silos we > work within. I have been unconsciously assuming that people on Pen-L would > know about the close links between the big environmental groups like NRDC and > EDF with the giant corporations whose behavior they are actually abetting. > > In the world I work in, the behavior of the big environmental groups is > common knowledge, though many of the people I work with still try to > cooperate with them in one way or another. > > On Nov 23, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Joseph Green <jgr...@communistvoice.org> wrote: >> [Marvin Gandall wrote] >>> Not to mention, on a more serious note, that not all capitalists >>> outside the coal, gas and oil industries are wedded to fossil fuels and >>> unconcerned about their disruptive and potentially catastrophic effects. >>> Bloomberg is a prominent spokesperson of this growing wing of the >>> bourgeoisie. If solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall >>> in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption and become >>> more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of >>> energy, there's no reason to suppose today's capitalists would not do what >>> previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of >>> energy. It's not an inevitable development, but neither can it be ruled >>> out. >> >> …Yes, even today a section of >> the bourgeoisie is concerned about the environment, and more will be in the >> future. But establishment environmentalism has put forward futile >> marketplace >> solutions. Indeed, it's measures aren't simply weak or inadequate, but some >> of them have made things worse. >> >> […] Sorry, I don’t think it can be completely ruled out, except by dogmatists, that “if solar and other alternative energy prices continue to fall in line with advanced technology and more widespread adoption, and become more cost-effective and safer than environmentally destructive forms of energy, there’s no reason to suppose today’s capitalists would not do what previous generations of capitalists have done and move to superior forms of energy.” Which, as I noted, is not to say such a development is inevitable or even likely. My comment had nothing to do with the demands being raised by the mainstream environmental organizations, although I did earlier pose the question on this thread, which remains as yet unanswered: "Concretely, is there much difference in the demands favoured by the established environmental organizations and the left-wing of the environmental movement? I'm not referring to the customary differences of strategy, nor the theoretical differences about whether it is possible to achieve the necessary reforms short of a sweeping change in capitalist property relations. “What are the ‘acceptable’ demands that…the eco-socialist movement would reject, and what ‘respectable’ environmental groups are advancing these?” _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
