> On Jan 27, 2026, at 09:00, David Walters via groups.io > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark wrote: > > > I was thinking of primary and secondary fossil-fuel industries such as oil > sands (primary) and plastics (secondary). I mentioned fertilizer, which is > secondary and uses fossil fuel inputs, and we cannot stop making fertilizers > like that by next year or even five. But we don't need to stop using fossil > fuels, even in the US, but reduce their use. We can do that, in part, by > finding ways to reduce energy demand, and then the US would not need as much > nuclear-power generation. To reduce demand, we could start by retiring AI > data centers, or at least tax them according to the costs to society - and > the same with power-hungry crypto coin "mining." > 24 to 35% of GHG emissions so stem from transportation (planes, trains, and > automobiles/trucks to be exact).
I'm using US only because (1) I live in the US, (2) it has the largest per-capita GHG emissions, and (3) it's the only nation that those of us living in the US can change. In the US, the largest contributor of GHG emissions is from cars, personal trucks as opposed to commercial ones, minivans, etc. at over 25% - independent of trains, planes, barges, and commercial trucking. It's dominated by the miles driven to get to our jobs from the suburbs, exurbs, or from rural homes. That's how we got to this point in this discussion: I noted that the "fetters" formula does not take into account the social deformation of the productive forces; it does not consider subsumption. I used the example of capital subsumption of the US housing industry that began over a century ago and how that has increased miles driven by thousands of percent from 1960-2000. But we nonetheless end up at nuclear power in this note. ... > That is a LOT [the "trucks" number includes pick-up trucks it seems thus the > largest percentage of this number but I haven't really drilled down on them] > > Mark appears very cynical about EVs (electric vehicles). He really doesn't > give an explanation. >From Jun 2024, https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/30646, "It's a complex question, but reducing resource throughput in the overdeveloped countries seems like a better place to start. Better that is, than increasing resource throughput to replace the electric grid and the stock of existing cars and appliance that use it. " >From Jun 2024, https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/34210 "the Biden administration [...] topped records for fossil-fuel extraction and consumption: It's the Republicans "Drill Baby Drill!" versus the Democrats program to accelerate the production of new commodities to replace the stock of US cars with electric vehicles and a new grid, all built by burning coal, oil, and gas. " >From March 2025, https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/36180 "Matt Huber calls for a labor alliance to transform the electric grid. As Simon Pirani has pointed out, however, that transformation is happening by burning coal, oil and gas. Biden's Green New Deal helped the US to break records in fossil-fuel extraction. I would label this as a "productivist" approach since the goal is to re-orient production to be "greener."" >From July 2025, https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/37888 "Replacing the electrical grid increases resource throughput in and for the imperial centers, which increases emissions. Thus, the growth in greenhouse gases has continued, partly as a result of the "green transition" in the countries that have the highest per-capita consumption of electricity." >From November 2025 "The progressive's solution to the climate problem is economic growth that includes a new energy grid, electric cars, low-carbon energy-generation (I think it's been proven that this cannot be done without nuclear reactors), and etc. The problem with solving the "climate problem" through growth is that it will worsen all other ecological problems that are caused by growth in commodity production. Furthermore, adoption of climate-friendly energy will ultimately not reduce emissions if Fressoz is correct." > Demanding, say, disincentives to owning internal combustion engines (ICE) via > fees and taxes, mandated fleet conversion to EVs, and incentives to actually > own cheaper made EVs, wouldn't effect, say, the U.S.' carbon footprint? It may marginally increase the US carbon footprint because the grid replacement and accelerated replacement of cars (through incentives) may push us over the point of no return on global warming. If you look at my quotes, above, I said that the "transition" you describe will drive up the burning of coal, oil and gas. Also in a quote above, Fressoz is cited as someone who used data to show that there is no such thing as an energy transition under capitalism. > Eliminating all fossil fuel generation (coal/natural gas, some oil) with > carbon free sources wouldn't effect the U.S. carbon footprint? That's a straw man. I wrote that the huge production effort of "Eliminating all fossil fuel generation" will be powered by coal as well as oil and gas. The replacement effort will heat the earth and perhaps drive us over the warming threshold. I also noted Fressoz work that transitions don't happen. > Why not? Mark, you should look at France where there high carbon footprint > estimate from the 1970s and compare it today's footprint. You'll find a HUGE > drop in that footprint because they go off of oil (the majority of their > generation in the early 70s) and coal. That is a GOOD THING in anyone's book. > Charging an EV in France today provides minimal carbon footprint, as opposed > to the U.S. where generation is still overwhelmingly fossil fuel based. France is not a major oil producer, is it? Like I wrote above, this thread is productive forces, and my note was about the role of subsumption in the development of productive forces. I happened to use a housing and transportation example and now we are onto discussing nuclear power! > > What I describe above needs to be generalized globally. That would at least > slow down the climb toward the 1.5C temp. increase we want to avoid. > > On demand. This is the problem with Mark (and most/many other > "ecosocialists") POV. I think he provides at least two good proposals that I > do agree with. Attacking the AI/Cryptocoin expansion. The latter of which I'm > for banning completely to see the total destruction of this speculative > gambling high energy consuming "industry" and the former of which I'm for > providing carbon free sources of energy. Many data centers are proposing just > that, the use of nuclear energy and contracts are being signed to due just > that...along with plugging into the carbon-heavy grid as well. It seems > appropriate to argue "no new AI development not based on 100% carbon free > generation". > > But that only addresses part of the demand. I like Mark's answer to my query > on housing. I'm 100% in agreement. Public housing is a demand that can be > achieved even under veracious capitalism and commodity production. But it > would take generations to accomplish that...and the political will to > organize around it. > > I will leave you all with something else. I've stated here and elsewhere that > I'm in favor of a 100% nuclear grid. The issue of nuclear aside...only a > complete cultural revolution can change the way we consume...or to use the > term Mark employ "demand". He does address some of this but not the overall > arching ability of the working class to fight for a program that can achieve > a socialist society. oi vey. I have at least eleven citations, which I don't have the time to list, where I said that the ecosocialist struggle should be focused on transitional demands to fight fossil capital, first and foremost. I wrote that we should be creating jobs by reducing the workweek rather than replacing the grid and our stock of automobiles because that increases resource throughput. And other points that are not at all germane to this thread on productive forces. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#40422): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/40422 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/117483986/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
