On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm totally willing to embrace the complexity of the world as it is. > But fortunately or unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society > which reduces all of this complexity to a single measure, monetary > market value. We shouldn't ignore that fact. > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
There is also a more primitive practical issue here. I listed the following things we as a society need to do: Electric trains, electric cars, bike paths, sidewalks, massive retrofits of existing buildings with efficiency technology, massive retrofit of industrial facilities with efficiency technologies, millions of solar power generators and wind turbines. The last two would require a smart grid, long distance transmission, and electric and thermal storage to let them power a stable grid. We also need a transformation of agriculture and forestry, and more thrift in the way we use water, metals, fibers, glass, plastic and other raw materials. There are other things on that list, and some people might suggest changes to the list, but I don't think anyone who looks at the issues doubts we need to do something on those lines. And about 95% of that list is stuff that would show up as gains in GDP. In short, given the massive resource mismangement, it is hard to imagine tackling our current problems without producing conventional GDP growth as a side effect. We really do need infrastructure, a lot of infrastructure - well over one and a half trillion a year in new infrastructure in a zero technical improvement scenario, perhaps half that if certain technical improvements make renewable electricity and efficiency improvements cheaper. Now of course there are savings here too - replacing existing energy costs, lowered air and water pollution with reductions in health costs, lowered production of certain existing infrastructure (heavy trucks, and lowered wear and tear on roads from fewer heavy trucks). But still it is hard to imagine doing all this and not having a larger GDP as a result. So it seems like any discussion of a low or no-growth economy has acknowledge that any such practice will, at minimum, have to wait until we finish (and hell until we begin) the needed transformation of out infrastructure. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
