this is déjà vu all over again. I have better things to do than rehearse old arguments. Somewhere in the pen-l archive, there's a bunch of missives on this subject.
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> it's true that the bourgeoisie will (try to) shift the cost of high >> hydrocarbon prices onto the poor and working classes. But the costs of >> global warming will be shifted in a similar way. The key is the >> fight-back. > > The key issue is to fight for effective regulation and environmental > planning. It doesn't make sense to advocate a bad plan -- the use of market > forces -- and then hope that the fight-back will improve it. > >> >> I don't know about "neoclassical models of 'peak oil.'" Rather, I'm >> saying that high prices of hydrocarbons -- from whatever source -- >> discourage the use of them (while their use causes global warming). I > > It is a neo-liberal illusion to believe that proper pricing will induce the > invisible hand of the market act in an environmentally responsible way. If > there is one thing which should have been learned by now, it's that the > market is infinitely creative in finding ways to make profits in ways that > are unanticipated and the confound those who thought they could use market > forces in favor of their pet plans. > > Carbon trading was supposed to harness market forces in favor of the > environment, and it has been a catastrophe. There is no reason, other than > sheer neo-liberal dogma, to expect much better of the carbon tax. > >> would rather have those high prices come from a carbon tax than from >> "normal" workings of supply and demand, since with the tax (in theory) >> the revenues could be used to compensate the poor for high gasoline >> prices, etc. rather than going into the pockets of Tony Hayward, Dick > > It would make more sense to examine how the carbon tax is already being used > than to dream that it would "theoretically" be of such great value. > >> Cheney, and his ilk. Of course, where the revenues go depends on the >> fight-back. >> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:33 PM, brad <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>right. As I've said, the world needs peak oil, so we can stop using >> > hydrocarbons. >> > -- >> > Jim Devine >> > ------------------------------------------ >> > Huh? The last time 'peak oil' was getting so much attention it did >> > zip to reduce the use of hydrocarbons and instead shifted the cost of >> > an overextended bourgeoisie onto the poorest of the poor through >> > increasing fuel and food costs. Burning fossil fuels is a big, big >> > problem but the solution won't come from neoclassical economic models >> > of 'peak oil'. >> > >> > Brad >> > _______________________________________________ >> > pen-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -- Joseph Green > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Jim Devine "Those who take the most from the table Teach contentment. Those for whom the taxes are destined Demand sacrifice. Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry of wonderful times to come. Those who lead the country into the abyss Call ruling too difficult For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
