Alex Nichols on the energy crisis and socialism
markjones011 at tiscali.co.uk
Mon Dec 2 17:36:49 MST 2002
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-marxism at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-marxism at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Louis Proyect
> Sent: 03 December 2002 00:19
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Alex Nichols on the energy crisis and socialism
> (Alex posted this to alt.politics.socialism.trotsky under the heading
> "Renewable Energy or Khmer Rouge socialism". Since he reads Marxmail, I
> assume that it was in response to our discussion here.)
This posting is full of bullshit but let him come here and argue it, I can't
be bothered otherwise.
Here is a list of the bits which are demonstrably bullshit. Let's see who's
been keeping up enough to fill in the blanks and save me the trouble.
1. a viable alternative is possible and industrial civilisation is not
2. Marxists say that socialism will be based on advanced industrial
and will require production of energy on a huge scale.
3. "Khmer Rouge Socialists"fatalistically propose a retreat to
conditions, it's necessary to look at the alternatives to oil.
[Once people start on about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (which they
obviously don't know anything about anyway) I put them in my Doug Henwood
killfile and stop answering.]
4. Renewable sources of energy offer the best long-term answer to
> the world's
> energy needs. Potential sources of renewable energy are more than enough
> to meet the world's energy needs. Utilising renewable energy isn't
> primarily a technical problem, but a political one.
5. The opening up of the Caspian oil fields
> means a plentiful supply of cheap oil for the time being.
6. The exploitation of alternative sources of fossil fuels is of course a
> possible alternative to current sources.
7. Sooner or later, the world will need to move to a situation in which the
> majority of its energy comes from renewable sources. The problem is, that
> private investors and capitalist governments are only engaging in token
> attempts to develop an alternative.
8. The most promising alternative being fuel cells, using hydrogen or
> generated from renewable sources. ...fuel cells
> could significantly reduce the effects of traffic pollution. All
> the major
> car manufacturers have fuel cell prototypes, but there is no economic
> incentive for them to put them into mass production and no fuel supply
[clue: this is because they don't fucking work, I mean fuel cells, and yeah,
I know about Ballard and the fucking buses]
8. Even if the technology to realise the potential of renewables is
> yet to be
> fully developed, nothing in principle prevents this.
The above 8 statements culled from Alex Nichols post to APST are IMO
demonstrably wrong. Some of his other remarks about atmosphereic
carbonisation are highly relevat however and very welcome.
I repeat that I consider talk about Khmer Rouge socialism to be an ad
hominem attack, redbaiting and poisoning the well of discourse and I'm not
gonna discuss the issue in those terms.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism