On Oikos, David Jeffrey wisely and succinctly diagnoses the problem:
It seems to me that the current international negotiations about climate change are the ultimate prisoner's dilemma. It is in each nation's best (economic) interests to have each other country do something about limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but not do something themselves.
This is equally wise and equally succinct:
To speculate about the way forward, the glimmers of hope seem to me to be:
- National action will become less important as local, state and regional governments and communities take bolder measures;
- International aid will be increasingly targeted at clean energy, helping to restrain emissions growth in developing countries;
- There will be modest technological advances which help decouple economic growth from emissions growth.
This, however, I do not agree with:
But ultimately I think our biggest saviour may just be peak oil. ... At current [oil price] levels, a whole range of alternative energy sources become commercially viable.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Peak oil is not going to vouchsafe clean-energy outcomes. Peak oil's primary short-term effect will be to sharply increase demand for coal. Coal to make electricity. Coal to make ethanol. Coal to make heating oil and diesel. Coal, coal, coal.
It might solve the energy-supply problem, but as far as global warming is concerned, coal is death.
Two things could save us from a coal-driven global warming nightmare (and notice that moral suasion isn't on the list):
- CO2 sequestration could prove wildly successful -- easier to develop than we thought, faster to deploy than we thought, and less error-prone than we feared.
- Other, non-fossil-fuel energy sources -- wind, solar, hydrokinetic, geothermal, and God help us, nuclear -- could fall in price rapidly enough to head off construction of dozens of new coal-fired power plants.
I feel a bit queasy pinning the future on either of these options. But in the end, they'll happen or they won't. Peak oil's pressures are impersonal and ruthless. The cheapest new source of energy will be used, climate change or no. I doubt advocacy will do much to change the outcome.
Comments View as Flat
odograph Posted 11:45 pm
28 May 2006
production curves
I challenged the energy optimists, in a previous comment, about the production curves they see possible for these energy sources.
I think the moderate view, splitting the difference, is that coal (etc.) are going to expand, but not as fast as boosters hope or opponents fear. There are just too many bottlenecks to large scale production. Rail lines from coal mines are already saturated, to the point that coal companies think railroads are restraining trade. There is also the open question of what fraction of those huge coal reserves are easily accessible and how much may be quickly mined in response to peak oil.
No, I think the two, simple, extreme views are wrong. We will neither have an easy-motoring future based on (among other things) the easy ramp-up of tar sands and coal-to-liquids. Neither will we fall of some kind of steep energy cliff as the end-of-worlders fear.
The middle path is a constrained energy future, and it is certainly arguable whether that constrained future would, 20 or 30 years out, be more or less CO2-intensive than our "easy motoring" present.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:21 am
29 May 2006
True that
Coal is the future unless some technological breakthrough kills it. If so, we need technology to use it economically (huge leaps in efficiency) and cleanly.
No option presently available comes anywhere close to a flammable liquid fuel that pours out of holes in the ground and flows through pipes to distribution and refining centers to the tune of millions of gallons every day.
Technology (practical application of knowledge) and poverty reduction are the key players. When I try to pronounce the names of the researchers listed above the papers in Science magazine, it is obvious that people from all over the world are adding to humanity's knowledge base (purely for personal gain of course).
One thing that may upset the whole apple cart is war (and nuclear proliferation). The world needs better governance to see us through this bottle neck. Maybe that is the real key right there.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:00 am
29 May 2006
Oil is the Gold Standard of Energy
Anything that will destroy civilization and humanity could aptly be called evil. Economics is amoral. Our fate lies in this gap.
Oil is the gold standard of energy. All energy sources become more valuable as oil becomes more expensive. Coal also becomes more expensive due to carbon tariffs. (see Sunday's NYT business section.) Transporting coal becomes more expensive. Replacing oil and gas home heat with coal electricity will be more expensive.
Peak oil causes inflation, possibly leading to recession, and will reduce discretionary purchases of energy products, such as air travel and hot tubs. Energy demand destruction is the best of all possible outcomes from peak oil.
If the history of the OPEC embargo can be our guide then investments in a diversity of young ideas will be stimulated by high oil prices. Some of these energy ideas will flourish into huge new industries.
I know the economics of solar energy best. The size of this resource is thousands of times larger than humanity's need for energy. The cost of solar energy is substantially less than the cost of mining energy from the ground.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/28/beyond.oil.ap/index.html
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:06 am
29 May 2006
Wind
Very positive article on wind here:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may06/3544
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:35 am
29 May 2006
Consumption-side approaches once again
The whole Kyoto Protocol emphasis that dominates David Jeffery's blog has a big sticking point. And Jeffery points out the reason why, himself:
The impetus to cheat is being provided by the economic system itself. This is the reason for the downturn in the carbon credit market in Europe. The governments are underreporting carbon emissions, and overgenerating credits, because governments are responsible first to the integrity of "national economy," and last to "global ecology."It isn't the mere fact of there being so many people in the world (most of whom don't benefit from all this stuff anyway), but rather the economic system, that produces this result of 85 million barrels of oil per day as an energy "requirement". If you want to solve the energy problem, you must adopt a consumption-side approach in order to reduce that "requirement" -- better technology is only going to increase the system's craving for energy, which means that the coal will be mined anyway. I would recommend Foster's piece on Jevons' Paradox for a simple explanation of how this works. Foster suggests the solution, too: reducing humanity's energy "requirement" itself requires social change.
Growth is not going to be decoupled from "carbon emission," for the reason pointed out by David Roberts: coal is next on the list. If solar were really so cheaply available in such huge quantities, they'd be using it that way now. The conversion problem is probably what prohibits solar from replacing oil. Will it work that way with coal too? It's probably out of date, but from Youngquist's pieceof 2000:
Got a more felicitous reason why the solar revolution isn't happening now?http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Alternative Energy Posted 6:34 am
29 May 2006
More peak oil and climate change
At the top of this page, peak oil climate change, you will find a useful article on the topic, along with more archived peak oil news stories. There is definately more dialogue needed about global warming and the impact of peak oil on the earth's rising temperatures.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:01 am
29 May 2006
Slavery-Capitalism-Socialism-Communism
are terms that are not precisely defined but can generally fit on a scale like the one above. One way to compare them is by looking at taxation. As taxation levels increase, you slide from the left side of the scale toward the right. You have a communist society when the taxes approach 100%. It isn't a perfect definition but works to a point. I would define capitalism here as a free market with government regulations (like a 40 hour work week and anti-trust laws) in place to prevent it from sliding into slavery.
The ecosystems of China (with 80% of their rivers so polluted that they are dead) and the former Soviet Union were devastated decades ago. They were not capitalist societies when they wrought that destruction. People destroy ecosystems in short-sighted self-interest, not capitalism.
I think what is missing from the discussion is evolutionary psychology. Capitalism appears to be the accumulation of wealth. In reality, it is the accumulation of ways to display one's status, like a peacock's feathers. Status seeking urges are closely linked to sexual urges and cannot be dismissed (or satiated). All social primates have status seeking urges. That is the reason communism does not work. It tries to deny people a basic instinct that must be fulfilled to be fully normal and mentally healthy.
Some ways of displaying status are more environmentally destructive than others and some ways are actually beneficial. A Rembrandt on your wall is far more environmentally benign than a yacht, or multiple homes. A Nobel Prize trumps a Rembrandt. Where does that leave the average Joe? A big shiny truck parked out front. Truck manufacturers work hard to convince people that this truck is a status symbol. Maybe competing plug-in carmakers need to convince them that they are not.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:10 am
29 May 2006
Self reliance is sexy
The Prius is the #1 status car.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:53 pm
29 May 2006
Definitions and Facts
Dear Biodiversivist,
You claim "The ecosystems of China (with 80% of their rivers so polluted that they are dead) and the former Soviet Union were devastated decades ago. "
Do you have any sources for this claim, or is this merely China/former Soviet Union bashing. They are not the same, you know. Is Washington State the same as Alabama? Maybe...
I know little about the former Soviet Union (though I have friends from there, but that is hearsay, not research). I also know little about China, but I do live here.
There are problems with pollution, but the ecosystems are hardly "devastated", nor have I heard your claim about "80% of the rivers" being dead. You are allowed your biases of course, but please be honest about them (smile).
We will get further along the road to solving our global problems if we can do it without name calling.
FWIW, I just spent last weekend speaking at vegetarian festivals about environmental vegetarianism in Beijing. I was well received.
There are difficult problems here, but exciting things happening too. And Chinese style communism may be a major part of the international environmental solution.
The Chairman of the capitalist GE was quoted as saying that the environmental technology they develop for the Chinese government will have global implications.
peace,
patrick
Permalink
kjmclark Posted 1:02 am
30 May 2006
I fear thou dost protest too much.
You can say it as many times as you like, you were wrong the first time and you're wrong this time. The major short-term effect of energy supply shocks is economic dislocation. It happened in the late 70's energy shock and it will happen this time as well. The 70's shock culminated in the recession of the early 80's and in some short-term reduction in oil use. There was no significant increase in coal to liquids or ethanol use, though both technologies were available then.
In the middle-term, you may be right, but it looks to me that people who think peak oil will reduce energy use are thinking of the short-term, get-the-ball rolling effect. The historical record from the last shock tends to agree with them. Last time, the shock and demand destruction was followed by an increase in supply, which then crushed the oil alternatives. If the follow-on effect this time is continued decrease in supply, then I would still expect the alternatives to be hurt, but with a much quicker comeback this time.
The bigger question is the effect of the economic dislocations on the world's energy gluttons, Americans. We are not in a good fiscal position to make a roaring comeback in our energy use if we are hit by an early 80's style recession. And what happens to the developing world that has been providing the US all-you-can-consume manufactured goods buffet when our economy is hit upside the head with a painful recession? A world-wide recession touched off by Peak Oil would likely reduce energy use overall.
Coal's future is certainly bright for something so dark, but it won't be replacing much oil in the short-term.
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:16 am
30 May 2006
Facts
A Google search of "China rivers pollution" comes up with several links:
From Wikipedia:
From Reuters:
The Council on Foriegn Relations offers an entire book on the subject.
There are many more. I could not find confirmation of "80% of it's rivers" are polluted, but clearly there is a very real pollution problem.
Kaela
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 3:06 am
30 May 2006
What about "economic democracy"?
Now, there are two definitions I know, for the terms "communism" and "socialism." (There are the definitions referring to communist/ socialist political movements, but that's another issue.) One of them refers to "state control of the means of production." The other refers to "public control of the means of production."
Neither of these definitions refers in any way to "taxes." "Taxes" assumes private control of the means of production, i.e. either capitalism or social democracy. A country like Sweden, where taxes are high, is still not socialist or communist, since the means of production (the factories, farms, and other facilities for making stuff everyone uses) are still in private hands in Sweden.
Now, among the two definitions of "socialism" or "communism," there is a big difference. State control of the means of production would be something like the Soviet Union, or pre-privatization China under the Communist Party. Public control of the means of production would be more like Friedrich Engels' ideal concept of "communism" in Principles of Communism:
In short, this is something radically different from either present-day Sweden or the Soviet Union, for Sweden is a social democracy, capitalism with a welfare state, and the Soviet Union was a system where the means of production was governed by a Party-based ruling class (and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union only admitted a small minority, less than 10%, of Soviet citizens) with autocratic powers. It wasn't control by the people of the means of production, such as what Engels idealized. No wonder you had such pollution problems!Now, back to our definition problem. Routine anticommunists in the US will only accept "state control of the means of production" as the proper definition of "communism." For such people, there is no such thing as "public control of the means of production." The only two entities they usually recognize as capable of any political power are "the individual" and "the state." The fact that society in the US today is governed by coalitions, e.g. elite coalitions such as those which meet to discuss affairs at meetings of the Trilateral Commission, or the Council on Foreign Relations, or interlocking directorates of Fortune 500 corporations, is out of the lexicon of such folk. So if we exclude the idea of "public control of the means of production" out of hand, we miss the notion of "the public" as a political entity, and the idea that people can organize into groups for political purposes and that these groups can amount to more than the sum of their individual members.
Such people also have a hard time recognizing the idea that society could be governed by communities or communes or co-operatives or other such non-capitalist organizations. We, however, need to have a lexicon to describe such a possible state of society. Terms have been invented to describe such ideal states of society, terms which get around the habitual US aversion to "communism" and "socialism." One such term is "economic democracy." "Economic democracy" is usually promoted under the notion that ordinary people, the public as a whole, should have some sort of democratic control over major economic decisions that affect them, such as, say, whether or not world-society should burn 85 million barrels of oil every day for energy (never mind the ecological costs), or should we pollute the rivers for the sake of industrial growth (a decision which would probably not pass muster were China an economic democracy).
Another term for this ideal society is "participatory economics" or "ParEcon," a term popularized by Michael Albert. There's also the term favored by the author George Orwell -- democratic socialism -- or the term favored by Laurence Gronlund, a late 19th-century utopian writer -- the "cooperative commonwealth." The same principle applies with such terms -- devise a scheme for public control of the means of production, i.e. the facilities for making major economic decisions.
Today, under the rule of the transnational capitalist class, major economic decisions are made by people, i.e. those people, with the enormous amounts of money they control, as they move this money around from country to country according to whose policies they like best and where they like to invest. So far, the transnational capitalist class has not chosen to do anything real with their power to combat hunger or poverty or global warming, which says something about how they maintain their power over the world today. In today's world, China, with the world's fastest-growing economy, is also the world's most polluted country. Needless to say, China has the favor of the transnational capitalist class today, as growth is good and pollution is something that happens "elsewhere" to such people.
Economic democracy would be better than rule by a transnational capitalist class, or if the world were to become more like China. Would you agree? or would you disagree?
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 5:38 am
30 May 2006
Cultural change is our only hope
My, my Dave, you are the pessimist today.
First, let me agree with you that peaking oil and natural gas production don't automatically help us to solve the climate disruption crisis. We could quite easily make the problem worse by turning to greater use of coal for both electricity generation and transportation fuels plus wringing synthetic oil from the bitumen in the tar sands and the kerogen in the shale. Given that I doubt carbon sequestration will prove workable on a sufficiently large scale, the resisting carbon emissions would likely drive catastrophic climate disruption.
As I've written elsewhere, "the good news is that the wisest actions we could take to prepare for peaking oil and gas production would also help us to avert climate crisis. If we choose to address the peaking challenge through energy conservation and efficiency, relocalization, and a transition to renewable energy sources, we'll be acting to avert catastrophic climate change at the same time."
What, if anything, will make the difference? The same thing all our hopes rely on, as far as I'm concerned: culture change. We know that cultures can change dramatically, both in positive and negative ways. Can we change our culture enough to deal with both peak oil and climate disruption in time (not to mention mass extinction, persistent organic pollution, deforestation, salinization, soil loss, and so on)? Heck if I know, but it's our only hope. We'll never regulate our way out of this mess if the minds of most people remain unchanged, if they continue to think of us as separate from "the environment." As I see it, this is where the bulk of our advocacy must be focused.
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:52 am
30 May 2006
Neo-liberal genetics
Status-seeking urges are as "natural" as capitalism, communism, Rembrandts, or trucks. That is to say, they're not "natural," they're overdetermined by cultural conditioning like the rest of human behavior.If it is "human nature" to compete, then how did most of humanity become the losers in "economic competition"? Talk about trucks and Rembrandts is just another way of forgetting that sizable minority of the human species that lives on less than $2/day. Eh? BTW, here is a good book to read about evolutionary psychology.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
John Fish Kurmann Posted 5:57 am
30 May 2006
How to benefit from our desire for social status
G'day, biodiversivist. You bring up a very important point with regard to the human need for social status. As a species evolved to live in community, and to build cultures, this is an integral part of who we are. Given that this drive to achieve social status is currently most often expressed in our culture through the accumulation of possessions (as well as a desire for fame and political power), how can we hope to prevent it from destroying the world? The Soviet system (I'm going to dodge the argument about what communism really is) worked to devour the world, but so does the market capitalism of the United States. Democratic Socialism might be a little better but not good enough. Whatever you want to call China's hybrid system doesn't seem to me to be an answer, either. Are we done for?
Perhaps, but, as I've already asserted, hope for us lies in fundamental cultural change. What sort of change, though? I think of the insights of anthropology, which reveal some interesting cross-cultural differences regarding social status. In the U.S. economic system, individuals maximize their own wealth and social status primarily through actions that are harmful to society as a whole. Our system promotes the accumulation of individual wealth, which produces a high level of intrasocietal competition, promotes a model of economic independence, and results in economic insecurity.
This sort of system is by no means universal among human cultures, however. There have been and continue to be other cultures whose economic systems promote communal wealth first and foremost, and they do this by aligning "what's good for the individual" with "what's good for society as a whole." In other words, in such societies, the behavior that is rewarded with high social status is behavior which primarily benefits society as a whole, not the individual. Doing so produces a high degree of intrasocietal cooperation, promotes a model of economic interdependence, and results in economic security.
For more on this subject, check out "The Parable of the Box".
The world is sacred and I am sacred as part of it.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:47 am
30 May 2006
To Know or not to Know
I do not believe world-wide cultural change is likely. I sense something else occurring, change of the individual in diverse cultures. I believe we are seeing it here. One by one, people of all persuasions and professions have encountered the issue of mass extinction caused by coal power plants. It is a personal encounter and life changing. Peak oil pales by comparison.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:37 am
30 May 2006
Good point John
I think that is my point also. Work to change what is a status symbol. Make, choose, and promote status symbols that are ecologically beneficial or benign. To do that you will need to get into people's heads the way car ads do. Get car ads to promote products that consume less (Prius). Help those products to win the competition.
Patrick,
I did not intend to bash China. I was just using it as an example demonstrating that environmental destruction is not unique to capitalist economies. Here is the source I was referring to and I can't vouch for its accuracy:
http://www.ips.org/Critical/Enviroment/Environ/env1209006.htm
...three-quarters of China's 50,000 kilometers of major rivers are unable to support fish.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:02 am
30 May 2006
LegumeSam (great moniker by the way)
100% state control of production is analogous to
a 100% tax. The state takes all that is produced (essentially a tax that takes all wages) and redistributes it as it sees fit back to the working class.
My main point was that blaming ecological degradation on capitalism, as it is most commonly defined, is incorrect in light of the fact that the two dominant communist cultures on the planet pillaged their ecosystems as bad or worse than the capitalist ones did. That's all.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 8:38 am
30 May 2006
Taxation is not control
I don't see it that way. Taxing a business is not the same as controlling a business. In controlling a business, one gets to decide how the business is run. Is it run ecologically? Predatorily? Taxation authorities don't decide that. I do indeed understand, but here once again I beg to differ. The Soviet Union was like a corporate business that ran the state -- everyone worked for the state, and everyone was paid by the state. It existed in a basically capitalist competition, aka the "Cold War," with the United States, Europe, and Japan. It was, in the words of Tony Cliff, a state capitalist regime. Claim all you want that it was "really communism." It wasn't the society imagined by Engels.Once again, we are caught in the difference between taxation and control. The working class may have "taxed" the Soviet state system. But the working class did not control the Soviet Union. If the working class is not in control, then the working class does not get to decide not to pollute. When the elites are in control, then environmental degradation becomes something that "happens to someone else."
Thus I have no qualms about blaming environmental degradation on capitalism. Anyone can point a finger at the Soviet Union and China and yell, "they did it too." It takes something more to suggest that humanity can do better.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:38 am
30 May 2006
But your posts always blame it on capitalism,
which excludes the Soviets and China in most people's minds. You need to spread the blame around a bit more.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:04 am
30 May 2006
human nature
Even if you don't buy it all, Stephen Pinker's book "The Blank Slate" does list a lot of other people's studies. These include human charictaristics repeated the world over. The were obviously present in cultures long pre-dating the modern buckets called Capitalism and Communism.
Status seeking is one. It's pretty clear that it is part of our nature (perhaps especially in our younger years).
I agree that our best bet is to encourage those sorts of status that are in tune with the times. But I don't think enviro-status is really going to break out into the mainstream without a pretty serious tipping point. Will the death of polar bears do it? I'd hate to see it come to that, but I don't see much happening (in the mainstream) now.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 11:43 am
30 May 2006
Indeed.
Indeed I do.http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:53 pm
30 May 2006
Defending Developing Economies
Dear Biodiversivist,
Thanks, I stand corrected then. But I am suspicious about gross over generalizations about China. For example, I live in Beijing, which has air problems. (The government reports on that itself). However, the air is not bad here all of the time, we just had three gorgeous days of clear blue skies and warm temperatures. Does this mean the problem is not serious? No. It does mean that folks in the West often tend to see only the bad (or in the case of some businesses, only the good).
For what it's worth, China is not the Soviet Union (now gone). It is a physically huge country, and all of it is hardly polluted to devasation. Certainly in the major industrial areas, yes, there are problems. But even there, some good things are happening. Car emmission controls are tightening, the government is investing real money in mass transit, sewer projects, and environmental clean up. Are there problems? You bet! The government worries and stresses over them quite a bit.
But one advantage of the system here, is that it is easy for the government to make things happen when it decides to do so (not that everyone stands in line and salutes, it isn't like that).
No one here is in denial about global warming. I gave two speeches last week advocating environmental vegetarianism (more Americans should try it!) and was well received. Trend or fad? I don't know.
What I do see here is an honest admission of the problems, and some efforts being made to do something about them (better than America's head in the sand approach).
Furthermore, various developing countries are trying to work together, and with signatories to the Kyoto treaty to address global warming issues. Americans probably don't read much about this, since the MSM doesn't see it as worthwhile, but the rest of the world hears about it every day.
Are there real problems in the developing countries? Yes. Will anyone solve them? Who konws?
What the world needs from Americans is to get on the bandwagon and start trying to work together on this stuff. Some long hot summers are coming.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:03 pm
30 May 2006
Communism and All That
None of the countries called "communist" by the west ever called themselves "communist" (as far as I have heard). The term in America is kin to saying "evil demon possessed worthy of being killed foe". Otherwise to most Americans it doesn't have much actual meaning.
We can sit and argue the history of the last century until we are blue in the face (or green!! (better idea!!)). Or we can look at where we are and try to work together.
Perhaps in a new century, we need to move beyond labels which have become somewhat meaningless (other than "me good", "you bad") and discuss some of the technical issues of how society functions and is organized.
For instance, it is a mantra in the West that private property is the way to go. Why? Can we discuss the differences involved in planning and addressing problems when dealing with centrally own and privately owned land? Or is it too emotional?
The main economic trand is towards some sort of market based and driven economy. But what limits should there be on such an economy? (There is no such "pure" thing).
How can we insure that environmental concerns are always included? Is it better to be in a situation where business puts it's immediate needs ahead of everything else? Or is it better to be in a situation where the government can tell business what rules it needs to meet to continue to function? How does this all work under different systems.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:14 pm
30 May 2006
Prisoner's Dilemna
This is sometimes referred to as the tragedy of the commons as well.
But it clearly is not real. The idea that every one will automatically cheat to win isn't true. Look at the treaties signed and functioning. Look at trade agreements.
There is another idea, called "win-win", in which nobody looses. A lot of businesses prefer this idea over only trying to win.
Prisoner's Dilemna works only when everyone is a strict individualist. In societies that value social cooperation, people will often beat the game.
If you come from a culture where you know that people will try to work together, this is not a problem. It is a cultural blind spot that makes some Americans think this is a universal rule.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:25 pm
30 May 2006
Dear LegumeSam
Do you have any grounds for your claim that "in today's world, China, with the world's fastest-growing economy, is also the world's most polluted country." Most polluted? Under what measuring system?
Is it worse than Iraq (which has nasty uranium dust all over the place)?
The water has problems, but would any of you care to go down to the Charles River in Boston, bend over and take a drink?
Do you drink directly from the Great Lakes?
You further say "Economic democracy would be better than rule by a transnational capitalist class, or if the world were to become more like China. Would you agree? or would you disagree?"
Sorry, not sure what you mean?
Can you define how we transition to your dream of economic democracy? Where are the mass movements calling for it? How exactly would it work?
How would you prevent someone from "fixing" your elections? (Or is this more like anarchism? (not used in the isulting term, but referring to syndication.))
The danger of advocating a system that is unlikely to be realized, is that you then end up advocating "nothing". People go, oh well, we can't achieve this perfect economic democracy, so we might as well buy another SUV, after all, without the economic democracy, our problems can't be solved.
It's not that what you call for can't work in theory, it's that there are neither many good practical examples, nor much call for it from working people.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:41 pm
30 May 2006
Dear Kaela
First of all, you are correct that there are problems. The government posts articles about water resource problems on a regular basis.
http://www.pressinterpreter.org/
http://english.chinamil.com.cn/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/home/index.html
http://english.people.com.cn/
Those are all general links to some of the English language press.
Here is a page on sustainable developement
http://english.people.com.cn/zhuanti/Zhuanti_473.html
Look at some of the articles. Are there problems, you bet!!
But there are a lot of different things going on, and many are positive.
One of my problems is that mainly what I see Americans writing (posting) is not only all negative, but often seems to reflect knee-jerk anti-Chinese sentiment. BTW, the rest of the world doesn't share such feelings.
As to Wikipedia? An anonymous so-called encyclopedia? No way.
patrick
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 8:16 pm
30 May 2006
You're right; peak oil doesn't reflect CO2 costs
David:
You're right, for the simple and obvious reason that prices of fossil fuels today do not include any pricing component that reflects their climate change costs. An efficient market that excludes these costs will still lead to increasing energy efficiency and thus declining carbon usage, but such changes will simply occur at a less rapid pace than is economically optimal - and certainly reflects no need to make mitigation or adaptation matters relating to climate change. Because GHGs are not regulated in the US (and are insufficiently regulated elsewhere, as everyone is waiting for the US, China and India), essentially we are subsidizing fossil fuel consumption, and these subsidies are on top of a host of other subsidies for fossil fuels.
The plain and simple economic principle that we should be focussed on is eliminating the subsidies that are skewing energy consumption towards fossil fuels. There is no need, and certainly no possibility, to change human nature or to completely rework society. We just need to correct the pricing structure, hopefully in a manner that is least intrusive, relies most on private investment and consumption decisions in the market, and is least susceptible to government micro-management and wasteful pork-barrel politics.
The best answer is to distribute transferrable GHG emissions permits, set at declining levels, free of charge to existing major producers, and to allow offets for carbon sequestration. This will immediately change incentives and market prices, and will lead to investments in coal gasification/sequestration, CO2-light natural gas, nuclear, conservation and a host of alternative technologies.
Other sensible policies would be to allow immediate write-off of new investments for tax purposes, and to pass laws creating schedules to compensate NIMBYs (thus undercutting incentives for judicial obstruction).
Some of these are possible in the real world, where everyone is looking for a government handout, and those who have existing direct or indirect subsidies and be expected to use current political leverage not to see them eliminated. Progress can be achieved here either by steamrolling if there is sufficient pressure, or by paying off those now feeding from the public treasury.
There is a grand bargain that can be offered that would actually be win-win; namely, industry should be happy to give up subsidies in exchange for substantial streamliing of permitting and environmental regulation, which environmentalists themselves recognize is incredibly inefficient and much more costly than necessary. Industry could save alot of costs if environmental regulations were based on performance rather than detailed technology requirements. The SO2 emissions trading scheme has been a very successful example of the right type of policy.
Regards,
TT
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:39 am
31 May 2006
Dear Patrick
One of my problems is that mainly what I see Americans writing (posting) is not only all negative, but often seems to reflect knee-jerk anti-Chinese sentiment. BTW, the rest of the world doesn't share such feelings.
I did the Google search and posted links to show that the majority of articles that pop up when one searches "China rivers pollution" are about how bad the pollution is, not necessarily about how much progress is being made in cleaning it up.
I guess I'm not sure where you feel all this anti-Chinese sentiment is coming from; while there are negative things that are stated about China on GristMill, there are many more negative things stated about the good old US of A. Probably most of the rest of the countries in the world, as well, with the notable exception of Sweden. We here at GristMill love Sweden. If China had Sweden's environmental policies, I'm sure we would all heart China as well.
As to Wikipedia? An anonymous so-called encyclopedia? No way
I, for one, am a huge fan of the Wiki. So there. <g>
Kaela
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:25 am
31 May 2006
Sorry for the gloss
I dunno. From Wikipedia: I'm sure my argument was a gloss; sorry for the inaccuracy.http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 4:13 am
31 May 2006
Gaining control over capitalist production
Any mass movement (the Zapatistas, MAS in Bolivia, the Landless Worker's Movement in Brazil, the "piqueteros" in Argentina etc.) that is trying to achieve any sort of public or worker control over resources or of production or is defending any sort of commons against industrial intrusion is fighting for economic democracy. Nobody knows "how exactly" an economic democracy would work, but most everyone who fights for worker control over the means of production knows what it is, and most everyone who is defending a commons (whether it be by lawsuit or by nonviolent civil disobedience or otherwise) knows what they're doing, too. There will be no need for a prior blueprint when there are enough principles to guide the way. If you want to see the principles stated succinctly, there's always Kovel's book.
Anarcho-syndicalism? Statism? Anti-statism? Committed activists of whatever stripe tend to recognize the advantage of life under a tolerant government over one that comes at the public with bullets and bombs. I don't see the point of cluttering the field with ideologies thataway.
The so-called "environmentalists" who think that environmentalism is a matter of consumer choice are the ones who are in fact advocating nothing. They imagine that their role as consumers empowers them to do something "green" by making individual consumer choices (while leaving the systemic logic untouched). Historically, consumerism itself, like Taylorism or monetarism or "work teams" or "free trade" or neoliberalism or possessive individualism or "guest worker programs for undocumented immigrants," was and is an ideological invention of the capitalist society that's devouring the planet. My suggestion: try to think against capitalist discipline, not by succumbing to it.Not buying an SUV? The financial elites have widely recognized the US economy and the US dollar as a losing investment anyway -- many of them continue to bother with the US in order to avoid losing further on unmovable investments already made here. In short, the folks selling SUVs can always move, and are today more likely to do so anyway. And I'm sure that every SUV a Gristmill reader doesn't buy will be snapped up elsewhere, by some participant in the world market that doesn't believe in eco-boycotts.
Now, a movement that fights to get control over the production of SUVs, whether by worker takeover of factories or through legislation or however, that's something that could work. The world could stop producing SUVs that way. But why stop at SUVs? We need to rope in production altogether, as the workers of the world. Productive consumption, after all, is the type of consumption that directly affects nature; Teresa Brennan's "Prime Directive" ("we shall not use up nature and humankind at a rate faster than they can replenish themselves and be replenished") needs to be applied directly to the sites of the using-up.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:32 am
31 May 2006
Dear Patrick
Your questions are great. Really, honestly, they are. I do, however, think that they should not just be asked of me, but of everyone else with a suggestion for change, too.
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:52 am
31 May 2006
Google and Wikipedia
Just a side note to be addressed to everyone who uses the net. What we see from Google is not the entire internet. Most of us search in English only. So, that most of what we see about Brazil will not reflect the majority of Brazilian posters (done in Portugese). And the majority of what you find about China will not reflect Chinese posters, since most of them (around 150 million at last count) post in Chinese.
The internet itself is a severly limited source of information. As a reflection of reality, it is biased towards educated, well off, computer literate people. Which is hardly the majority of the world. Furthermore, it doesn't contain all of the information in print (which itself is not all of reality).
I am not Chinese, I have no right to speak for China, if you want the voices of China, you have to look for English language sites created by Chinese people, or learn Chinese. Otherwise, everything you learn is written by others. (Example, if I want to learn about the United States, can I do so by reading the web sites of Al Queda? Or those written only in Hindi? Or Chinese?)
As to wikipedia, anyone can post anything anonymously. I know many people love it, but really, who is doing the posting? Do you honestly believe they are all "objective observers"? Do you really believe that there is any such thing?
We, all of us, have biases. By hiding behind anonymous postings, we are attempting to disguise those biases, or deny their existence. The American government has admitted to planting false stories in the media to try to influence public opinion in the US and other parts of the world. Do we think other governments won't also try to do this (even if only in "self-defense").
Is it possible that people who admit they plant lies in mainstream media haven't found wikipedia? And that no one who posts ever has biases? And that all of the committees that review postings are full of people without biases (and are not all white middle class males?)?
Wikipedia is an interesting fantasy, but only that. An anonymous encyclopedia does not meet any definition of "scholarship". And the internet reflects only a tiny part of reality.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:57 am
31 May 2006
Dear LegumeSam
My apology, I was addressing you because I had specific questions about your postings, not out of any desire to attack you (sorry if it appears that way, I actually am largely in agreement with you, though perhaps not as optimistic).
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:29 pm
31 May 2006
The Myth of Consumer Power
In the 1950's, there was a great series of books published by a writer named Vance Packard.
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/author/Packard,%20Vance
For some of his books.
Most of us as consumers do not function in an unbiased space. We are all affected by the environment around us, much of which is created through advertising and the media to manipulate us in certain directions. (Look at what has happened to people in the so called "red" states, at how their shaped and limited access to information has affected their world views).
(Look at how readily we accepted the use of the color labels "red" for Bush states and "blue" for left ward (sort of) leaning states. This is a historical reversal of the meaning of these colors, and if you think it was done by accident, I have some investment opportunities for you!)
"The so-called "environmentalists" who think that environmentalism is a matter of consumer choice are the ones who are in fact advocating nothing. They imagine that their role as consumers empowers them to do something "green" by making individual consumer choices (while leaving the systemic logic untouched). Historically, consumerism itself, like Taylorism or monetarism or "work teams" or "free trade" or neoliberalism or possessive individualism or "guest worker programs for undocumented immigrants," was and is an ideological invention of the capitalist society that's devouring the planet. My suggestion: try to think against capitalist discipline, not by succumbing to it."
Will just fiddling with consumption work? It would if it worked. However, the resistance of the system to even minor corrections (reducing gas oline consumption) suggests that we have problems.
Clearly there is something deeply wrong with the present American system. The fact that people continue to act in self-destructive ways suggests this.
Wanting to look beyond labels is fine, but capitalism is just another label. The original Marxist critics of capitalism were correct on many points, but incorrect on others. No matter.
We are in a time, where we should be able to look dispassionately at what works and what doesn't work in any system and strive to improve it.
What doesn't work in American capitalism?
1) Short term market based policies that do not reflect long term costs.
2) Putting immediate profit as the only goal of our productive (business, if you will) activity.
3) Putting individual needs as the highest priority in society.
4) Allowing means of communication to be largely controlled by our "oilagarchy".
5) Having as our primary value system, consumption and possessions.
We need to begin to redefine 1) Our values, and 2) The ways in which we organize our society.
Being "green consumers" is a good idea, but it fails to address the parts of the problems created by our institutions (military, educational, government, union, religous, ngo's, etc.)
We have institutional problems as well as consumption problems.
patrick
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 5:40 pm
01 Jun 2006
Capitalism
All words are labels. That's why we use them. "Capitalism" is a word I use for a system that depends upon the exploitation/ consumption of nature and labor for the sake of a system of production that chases effective demand. Now, effective demand is a curious term. It has little to do with whether or not anyone really wants or needs a product. It's actually a number; it can be calculated by multiplying the number of paying customers by the price per item, and goes in the left-hand column of any balance sheet. The paying customers can be lined up by any species of trickery you care to name.At any rate, because capitalism (yes, it's my label for it) is organized thusly, it pays no heed to environmental sustainability, to the comfort of the human race, or to anything besides the profit margins of the businesses in whose name it is conducted.
If Scandinavian capitalism looks good to you, perhaps this is because Scandinavian entrepreneurs have eked out a comfortably exploitative relationship to the rest of the world and are now trying to secure the benefits of this relationship for "their people." Good luck applying for citizenship there, if that is indeed your dream.As Marx said in Capital:
Meanwhile, I tend to believe that aiming for sustainability by beautifying capitalism is like aiming for beauty by putting lipstick on a pig. May a thousand economic democracies bloom!
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:24 am
07 Jun 2006
About Scandanavia and Economic Democracy
Sorry, if you (LegumeSam) were replying to me, I don't get the Scandanavian references??? I live in Beijing, and have never been there (Scandanavia).
As for Economic Democracy, it is a pretty term and hard to argue with. But it is also very vague and hard to support.
Will there be Economic Democracy in one nation, one factory? How will society outside the factory organize itself? How will relations between various worker controlled economic units be defined and regulated? Who will do this, and how will they be chosen?
How would transitions take place, and when?
Global Warming is one of my main current concerns, and I don't see that waiting for something for which there is little current demand (economic democracy) will help solve the problem.
patrick
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 2:02 pm
07 Jun 2006
Economic Democracy again
Since economic democracy means public control over the means of production, as prerequisite for the democratization of economic decisionmaking, how is it that there is "little demand" for such a thing? Should we imagine the global public to be universally apathetic and undesirous of any power over how economic decisions are made?
I've already suggested that, wherever ordinary people are fighting to get control over economic life, one has a trend toward economic democracy. Were those wasted words? Economic democracy is not a system imagined by a 19th-century utopian writer. Your questions as regards "how it will work" are important to those who are trying to make it happen, and they will be answered in the process of struggle itself. I have reason to believe that, even in China, people want such a thing. Is Weil making it up?
And, presuming that you are a member of the public like myself, and not one of the elites, how do you imagine yourself having any power at all over global warming if you don't work for some form of economic democracy? Do you, for instance, imagine yourself becoming a rich and famous rock star like Bono of U2, so you can have idle conversations with the elites who make the big economic decisions in the world of today? I mention that as an example because it is one way of trying to "change the world" while doing nothing to change the hierarchies of wealth and power. I am asking these questions not because I want to pick on you, but because I indeed prize you as a potential ally and am wondering what the hang-up is.
What's your current MO, anyway?
http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:14 am
08 Jun 2006
Weil and Me, different perspectives.
I am an English teacher in China. I teach in a small college on the outskirts of Beijing. My students come from all over the country, and from many different backgrounds. I also teach (as a volunteer) children of migrant workers, and some restaurant and hotel workers (who are all from poor areas of China). Plus, I have private students from well off families.
My future prospects? Teach, write, live and love. (Love could be higher on the list, but not today (grin)).
Economic power for me? Hey, I can fill my belly. I can buy what I "need" and a bit of what I want (I have adjusted my "want" list to meet my ablity to pay (grin)). I am a guest in China, so my situation here is different.
Many many people think in terms of "economic survival" not "power".
Frankly, Weil's article is not "incorrect" in the sense that he was reporting conversations he had with various people. However, it does not strike me that most of what he reported is indicative of any trends that are visible. The situation here is more complicated than he reports (based on my limited knowledge). And his reporting shows no signs of any sensitivity to Chinese culture.
Westerners frequently come to China and find someone who tells them what they want to hear (whatever you want to hear, there is probably someone who will confirm it). Generally I am not too impressed. (The Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Post run some of the worst articles I see, but I don't see everything.) Many people report that the system is in danger of collapse. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting!
China is a huge country, and I would be a liar if I claimed to know what is going on, or tried to make conclusions about it. I am not an expert on China. The best experts are the Chinese people. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves!! (grin).
For people interested in beginning to learn about China, I suggest looking at the Chinese newspapers (China Daily, People's Daily, China Today to name a few) and magazines published in English, and also reading some of the modern fiction. Not (only) the works of writers who have left China, but those who have stayed. If you have trouble finding these, search for "Panda Books", which is an imprint of the Foreign Language Press. (Their web site's English page never seems to be working, so I don't include it.)
People who want to romanticize the Cultural Revolution should think again. And should read what many of the Chinese people have to say about it. (I know there are some old comrades who miss it, but I don't meet many young people with nostalgia for it, and certainly there are many many people with bad memories of that time.)
Back to economic democracy.
Frankly, it sounds good, but the prospects of significant progress towards it being made in the near future are dim. I may be wrong, but that is what I see.
Global Warming will eventually create "emergencies" and a crisis atmosphere will ensue. At that time, more social organization and control will be likely to occur. In China that will be under the leadership of the CCP, in the US, who knows.
In my mind, you (LegumeSam) are too optimistic (you may regard me as a cynic or pessimist if you like, some of my scientist friends regard me as an optimist because I believe we can survive).
While the history of economic democracy is short, there is no evidence that, when workers were in control of factories, they paid much attention to environmental concerns. Workers are no better or worse than anyone else (in fact they,we are anyone else (grin)). (Will they really vote to stop producing SUV's, which would enrich themselves to protect the environment? I think not.)
"Trends" towards economic democracy are good, of course, for many reasons. However, I do not see any signs of massive social change happening in most of the world (especially in America, my and your (I presume) home, and the root of the global warming problem.
I do believe we are in many ways allies, but I am never someone who accepts anything without questioning (often sharp and critical). I expect to be treated the same way.
Do people really want economic democracy? I understand that many people believe so, but is it in fact true? I don't know. Most people want an "okay" life, to be happy and have enough. A lot of people have no interest in politics, even if I wished they did (ditto for the environmental movement).
Many people who are fighting for change, are fighting to address a specific problem, and not neccessarily to change the whole system. Once the problem has been addressed, they are content to stop there.
We can see this in the weakened conditions of the American labor movement. Once groups of workers took care of their own immediate demands, they lost interest in the movement as a whole, and capital was able to slowly and patiently roll it back. With little actual opposition.
As for global warming and economic democracy, as I said, it will lead to (and possibly "require", though that is arguable) more social control and cohesion (we are talking about the possible mass migration of hundreds of millions of people, maybe more).
You ask " Should we imagine the global public to be universally apathetic and undesirous of any power over how economic decisions are made?" Umm, my feeling is pretty much, yes. At least in the sense that you are talking about. I would love to be wrong (and please show me I am, but I am hard to convince).
patrick
Permalink