Sam Pawlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How are they [poor countries as they develop] to pay for it [limiting
environmental damage]? World Bank loans? I try not to assume anything,
but it's safe to say that LDC countries will follow the path of least
resistance (i.e. the cheapest) towards
Rich countries reduce pollution, in part, by exporting it to poor
countries.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:44:00AM -0400, Julio Huato wrote:
Sam Pawlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How are they [poor countries as they develop] to pay for it [limiting
environmental damage]? World Bank loans? I try not
Julio Huato wrote:
IMO, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third
World is not imperialism.
What is?
Doug
Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Rich countries reduce pollution, in part, by exporting it to poor
countries.
If Third World countries get to grow, they are likely to be in a position to
limit or negotiate this in better terms.
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Julio Huato wrote:
IMO, the main obstacle to the development of capitalism in the Third
World is not imperialism.
What is?
Doug
To state it in general may not be particularly helpful. But here it goes.
In my opinion, the main obstacle to the development of
This sounds like the articulation of modes of production
approach reviewed back in the late 70's in NLR by Aidan-Foster-Carter.
Another part of what Julio says sounds like to me like the Peruvian
economist touted by Mario Vargas Llosa, and the late Richard
Milhous Nixon, whose name I'm
The New York Times Magazine had a lengthy article about Hernando de Soto on
July 1:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/01/magazine/01DESOTO.html?pagewanted=all
What is especially interesting is that he is apparently catching on in
various places: Aristide in Haiti and Mubarak in Egypt, among
michael pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This sounds like the articulation of modes of production
approach reviewed back in the late 70's in NLR by Aidan-Foster-Carter.
Another part of what Julio says sounds like to me like the Peruvian
economist touted by Mario Vargas Llosa, and the late Richard
Michael Pugliese [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I knew I should have phrased that differently!
No. It's fair, Michael. And thank you for all the URLs. I have heard of
de Soto before. Louis Proyect already honored me by associating me with
him. But I haven't read him directly. Now I should.
Why should we assume that Third World countries, as they industrialize,
will
not act to limit environmental damage?
How are they to pay for it? World Bank loans? I try not to assume anything,
but it's safe to say that LDC countries will follow the path of least
resistance (i.e. the cheapest)
Jim Devine wrote:
In any event,
people can and do figure out ways to use oil more efficiently each year.
=
In last December's Monthly Review (vol 52, no 7) John Bellamy Foster wrote a
good article resurrecting the Jevons Paradox: Chapter Seven of The Coal
Question was entitled 'Of the
Yoshie writes:
In contrast, Mark's framework -- the second law of thermodynamics,
the law of diminishing returns, etc. -- suggests that he thinks that
the problem is not so much capitalism as industrialization that the
solution is deindustrialization under socialism, substituting
Yoshie writes:
You might clarify your political program, then. If not
deindustrialization labor-intensive production under socialism,
what do you think would allow human beings to live with the
constraints that you have us posit? Do you agree with Sweezy
Foster that an energy revolution
Yoshie
It's not clear to me that we disagree on anything substantive. The
implication that I'm somehow having a go at Lenin is misplaced, because the
point is not how mistaken Lenin was, but how constrained by his
circumstances he was. Those circumstances included civil war and the
unwarranted
Michael Keaney says:
It's not clear to me that we disagree on anything substantive. The
implication that I'm somehow having a go at Lenin is misplaced, because the
point is not how mistaken Lenin was, but how constrained by his
circumstances he was. Those circumstances included civil war and the
I wrote:
in addition, Louis P. has argued (pretty convincingly) that the early
Bolshevik regime was pretty ecologically-minded (especially by the
standards of the day), until the rot set in
says Yoshie:
Many Greens understand the rot in question to be the ideology of
productivism, but I
The last sentence is unnecessary.
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:01:30PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote:
And
there is much capitalist industry that can, without great disagreement among
socialists, be decommissioned. That pertaining to the military sector would
be a good place to start.
Michael K.
I think most people agree with you to the following: 1)there is an impending
global energy shortage that will cause a crisis within capitalism 2) the New
Economy doesn't alter the fact that capitalism is dependent upon
traditional energy sources
. You seem to suggest two somewhat contradictory
Ken Hanly wrote:
I think most people agree with you to the following: 1)there is an impending
global energy shortage that will cause a crisis within capitalism 2) the New
Economy doesn't alter the fact that capitalism is dependent upon
traditional energy sources
I'm not sure I agree with 1);
At 01:19 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty.
pessimist: the glass is half empty.
optimist: the glass is half full.
realist: it's half a glass of water.
surrealist: it's a cow.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 01:19 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty.
pessimist: the glass is half empty.
optimist: the glass is half full.
realist: it's half a glass of water.
surrealist: it's a cow.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Yet another take on Hubbert's
peak
At 01:19 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
But I guess a glass at 50% capacity is always half empty.
pessimist: the glass is half empty.
optimist: the glass is half full.
realist: it's half a glass of water.
surrealist: it's a cow.
Jim Devine
Charles Brown wrote:
CB: Wouldn't it be moving toward more than half empty , hasn't the
half used up been in a little over 100 years, and aren't we using it
up at a much faster rate today than it was being used up 75 to 100
years ago ? So, _if_ it is half empty, wouldn't the other half be
Mark Jones wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Yeah, except that the glass keeps filling - maybe not at the rate
it's being drained, but discoveries happen all the time, and old
fields give up more oil than was thought possible because of
technological trickery. And, there was that story in the
Charles Brown wrote:
Then when you add in global warming, that adds another jag.
Like I've said many times, that's the real worry. Mark's
petro-malthusianism isn't the main worry by far.
Doug
I'm no geologist (nor do I play one on TV), but it's possible (as Thomas
Gold suggests) that the supply is like the supply of magma under the
ground. It would go away _very_ slowly as the earth cools. In any event,
people can and do figure out ways to use oil more efficiently each year.
Wall
Have we any examples from the past of people making 100 year predictions re
energy? Are any near the mark? Were they mostly too optimistic or
pessimistic?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Sam Pawlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marxism [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Pen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message -
From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 3:20 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:14806] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's
peak
Ken Hanly:
Of course I forgot. References you supply demolish the idea that tar
sands
,or anything else I
Ken Hanly:
Have we any examples from the past of people making 100 year predictions
re
energy? Are any near the mark? Were they mostly too optimistic or
pessimistic?
Yeah, well I think Jevons predicted the end of coal. But more to the point,
it's time to move beyond 'the boy who cried wolf
Sam Pawlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At best, costlier energy means that less developed countries will not be
able
to industrialize the way the North has: through cheap energy. The only way
will be for the North to decrease consumption. Because of acute capital
shortage, countries of the South will
Tar sands as a source of oil will remain fantasy? Already just the mining of
the Alberta sands produces over 15 percent of Canadas oil. See the chart at
as well: As conventional production declines, tar sands production is
rapidly expanding. In situ extraction is being used NOW as well as
. How then is it that production is
increasing?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Mark Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:14799] RE: Re: RE: Yet another take on Hubbert's peak
Ken, only today I sent you offlist
32 matches
Mail list logo
