******************** 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. *****************************************************************
Tsk, tsk. I expected a bit more from Ian on this rebuttal to Parenti. I have this issue of Jacobin and though I always enjoy many of it's articles (and dislike as many) I have not read the Parenti piece. Largely because I don't find him, generally, particularly insightful on anything. Parenti, like Trotsky, and like Louis or most of us are not really *qualified* to comment knowingly in this regard. We are all quite outside the expertise needed. So we rely on others. Trotsky may of been wrong on atomic energy, but he certainly didn't have his head up his ass on this. It was, and *remains* an informed position and that he did in fact view future advent of atomic energy that would replace, or might replace coal or oil, is factually accurate. France did *exactly* that in getting off of oil and coal as did the United States with oil. The US continued to use coal however, France did not. The two carbon footprints are noticeable for each country in the difference in their footprint sizes. It is particularly large for the U.S. and small by European standards for France. One can, again, argue the merits of this or that form of energy, on can't argue that Trotsky's prognostication was very accurate. Thusly, head, not in ass. On some of the actual specific issues involved. I do agree with Ian Angus that "Carbon Capture" is something of a fraud (he doesn't use that term, I do but he implies it). It can be done. There is a large Dept. of Energy Plant that was running in North Dakota (I think) that removed CO2 (and CO) from coal burning. It is the only plant in the world that I believe is running or was successful. But Parenti's thing here is directly from the atmosphere. It has already been demonstrated by the U.S. Navy despite what Angus notes about the same Navy looking for better methods of doing it. The problem is that it use (by the Navy and every proposed system) vast amounts of the electricity produced by the nuclear reactors on the submarine. I'm all for the R&D by anyone who can efficiently help lower CO2 in *enough* time to make a difference! But honestly it's probably better to use the most efficient form of solar energy for this: photosynthesis in the growing of massive amounts of trees and restoring vast tracts of prairie land where it won't interfere in farming. The bottom line that Angus implies is that it's damn expensive to conceive of doing this mechanically from the atmosphere directly. The more interesting thing, IMO, is not Parenti but Angus' non-take on ecomodernism. There is little substance in his charges against them (there is, actually, but Angus fails to document this). I have of course a lot in common with some aspects of ecomodernism, which in someways is a helluva lot closer to the actual Marxist outlook on what is *needed* to solve the environmental crisis than, say, the Greens or Greenpeace, Joseph Romm or others Angus defends or quotes. All of whom are *reactionary* de-development types to varying degrees. The ecomodernists problem, generally, is that they look to purely technological solutions and eschew social ones. I've debated, interestingly both ecomodernists and Greens over their adherence (in some case for the former, not all or even a majority by any means) to natural gas. Both green-wash this dangerous fossil fuel and ignore the long term consequences. More another time, perhaps. David _________________________________________________________ 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
