On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:01:35 -0600, you wrote: > > >murdoch wrote: > > They seem to want energy independence for the U.S., but >> only if it doesn't hurt their cronies. They have the priority of better >> energy >> policy, but it is subverted to at least one higher priority, aka Exxon-Mobil >> et. >> al. (under guise of giving due consideration to the rationale for staying >> with >> much of the fossil fuel paradigm). >> > >I wonder, how much of the concern for big oil is actually concern for >all the people who work in oil related jobs? I am working for a >sustainable world, so don't get me wrong, but what do we do with the >people that are employed in the un-sustainable one? I am not speaking >of the educated engineers or management, but the guys out in the field, >who number in the thousands, quite probably hundreds of thousands. The >people who have no education, but have families to support. Also, the >clerks, dispatchers, and basic mechanics, that will need to be retrained.
I think these are good questions, no, *great* questions, to which I don't have all the answers lined up, although I do have some of my own opinions. You don't have to couch this sort of question in apologetic terms with me. It's central and important. I think it's larger than the oil industry, per se. To me the question is: when there is a push for a change in a major world industry, what can be reasonably expected in terms of job loss and gain? What does history teach us, if anything, that could be useful in such a case? Can the job loss be avoided in any case, if the older industry is suffering? Can the new jobs be identified and discussed, so that they are a real prospect that can be brought into the discussion and not some phantom? Can the cost of retraining be quantified so that it is understood and discussed rationally? Keith gave some responses which may be along the sort of academic lines I'm thinking of, where we try to make use of the research of Economists and Sociologists and Historians who have studied these matters. My own amateur opinions or observations: This is a big issue with the push for EVs as well. It is not precisely the "costs of stranded assets" because I think that term is generally used in reference to physical assets, but it is the labor equivalent of that term. It is the cost of the loss of jobs, of men and women and the training and experience they have. It is the loss to the old businesses of the revenues that proceeded from those people who were in place and thus were not "high maintenance". Profits and revenues were steady and predictable from those in-place physical and labor assets. If human invention and business which are theoretically always trying to make things "better" includes some inherent concept that "better" means less costly, less labor-intensive and so forth, then isn't all progress or change somewhat geared toward elimination or change of jobs? Isn't it sort of an inherent paradox of "society" that, *in a way* we all spend all of our time trying to find ways to spend less of our time doing what we're doing? Anyway, with EVs, the argument goes (and I think it's a worthy hypothesis), that the auto companies view the costs of these stranded assets as potentially so enormous that it would seriously disrupt the worldwide auto industry, so there has been a rather nasty dishonesty (in my view) surrounding why EVs aren't made or supported. How do you retrain the hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, whose livelihoods, such as they are, depend on cars breaking down, oil changes, making of parts for engines, and so forth? Best to pretend that desireable EVs can't be done affordably, than to needlessly throw away a "good thing" that they have going on. Surely there is some element of this battle in the history of most technological change. A useful thing would be to have some perspective from some who know this history. In the meantime we have this massive holdup of arguably better technology, whether it be in fuels (biofuel, electricity) or engines or batteries or cars. I had hoped that someday I would find something more to like about China's apparent consideration for much world opinion, and indeed, as against any of these concerns they are investing and researching and trying and trying to build alt-fuel vehicles including a seemingly-no-screwing-around investment in better batteries. Presumably this is all employing *plenty* of people. Whether we like it or not, I am afraid that the pieces are already in place for hundreds of thousands of North American union auto workers to be displaced over the next few decades, as their companies struggle to live with the dangerous game of have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too that they've been playing. By the way, at the Santa Monica Meeting last night, it was mentioned several times that the auto companies and others regularly monitor many of the discussion lists, and not because they're trying to learn how to build better cars. It has a chilling effect on such matters as employees opening their mouths as to what's really going on, but it could also help if somehow a rational idea would get through to them once in awhile (ok, ... a bit naive I know). MM >While I may be unusual, about half of the people I know, including my >husband work in an oil field related job that will disappear. We are >working to get my other half out of there, [and he has the education to >be employed elsewhere] but to find jobs and careers for all these people >is going to dislocate the economy, big time, if done too quickly. > >Let me say again, I do want to see the end of big oil. I am also aware >of the impact it is going to have, which is rarely mentioned. I have >seen mention that the oil cracking plants could be changed to biofuel >plants, but what about oil field service, which is a huge industry? > >Just some thoughts on a Monday morning. > >Bright Blessings, >Kim > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
