On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > Les Schaffer just sent me a link to an article by Chomsky that > contains the following: > > As you might recall, I have pondered long and hard the question of > why the bourgeoisie is "threatening the lives of their > grandchildren." > > I think I understand Chomsky's argument but it still does not > satisfy me. We do know that the bourgeoisie has been able to > transcend externalities in the past. Theodore Roosevelt's > ambitious conservation program was evidence of that (so much so > that Lenin sought to emulate it in the USSR), as was the creation > of a public school system that was second to none in the world. > > Something else is going on that I can't quite put my finger on, > but it has something to do with the decline of America as an > industrial power. Investments in infrastructure and education are > usually connected with a belief that your own country has a future > as an economic power. Just look at China's investment in green > technology. > > Perhaps the "shortsightedness" of the American bourgeoisie > reflects a sense that it has no future as a hegemon?
Hi Louis. May be part of it. But I think there is something else going on. The problem is more fundamental than externalities. It is tied to problems more fundamental than price. And note that while China may be investing more in Green tech, Chinese pollution is increasing, not decreasing. More wind turbines, but more coal plants too. Just had minor surgery so you will have to Google to confirm, cause no links or cites today - but: 1) The kind of problems we have require changes in infrastructure. Unlike pollution tackled in the past where we could simply add "end of pipe" technologies to clean up pollution after it was produced but before it was released into the environment we have do pollution prevention. As you said, you've written about this and closed cycle tech, but I think you can find some answer to your questions by considering some of your own past work. 2) Evidence it is not just a matter of "externalities". Firms almost always make a guess at return on investment before they invest money. Business require twice the projected rates of return on reducing flow costs (energy, water, materials and so on) than they require for investing in labor savings, or attempts and increasing sales and market share. They would just as soon reduce labor costs by one dollar as energy costs by two dollars. You, along with anyone who does not completely exclude class struggle from their analysis, can probably guess why this. I know this is as true in all rich nations, and most conventionally capitalist poor nations. I'd be curious to know whether or not is true in China. 3) Existing infrastructure favors certain choices in a way it would take a hell of a price to compensate for. For example the Victoria Institute estimates that we provide about $4,400 per year in subsidies to parking in the U.S. per car. That means most drivers are receiving more in subsidized parking than they spend on gas. And parking is only one kind of subsidy automobiles receive. It would take a hell of a carbon price to just compensate for this kind of infrastructure subsidy let alone push back against pollution, traffic and similar effects. Further a lot if this subsidy is in the form of parking that has already been required to be built, and a lot of competing infrastructure not built because of these subsidies. So some of these subsidies can't be taken back for decades. And some of the indirect effects of a half century of such subsidies won't disappear even if the subsidies do. Which is one reason phasing out of emissions requires really large scale public investment. 4) Maybe the difference in part is in the ruling class. But I think another difference is the absence of a strong left movement. Although sometimes it is a bit proforma, moving military spending into green energy has been a left demand since at least the 70s. A strong militant movement might win some of this as a response to demands and some of the rest as a way to pre-empt and weaken the movement. Note that I said a strong left movement, not a strong environmental movement. This kind of thing would stem from a left movement that included environmental demands not I think a movement centered around the environment. 5) OK I just de-stressed post surgery, pre recovery nap by posting on Pen-L. I think that makes me deeply weird. See y'all later. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
