Are renewables uneconomical? NOPE!

Mike Ballard swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au
Sat Dec 7 18:25:40 MST 2002


--- Richard Wilson <richarda at wfeca.net> wrote:
> There's been much debate on exactly how economical
> renewable are. However, I
> believe they are far more economic than fossil
> fuels? Why? Because
> capitalist accounting of costs and benefits do not
> include the potential
> cost of future global warming resulting from the
> burning of those energy
> sources, the lumber killed, statues and buildings
> eroded, health costs
> associated with smog & acid rain are not included in
> the costs, get the
> picture? It's hard to measure the 'price' cost of
> environmental degradation,
> which is why under capitalism, oil, coal and natural
> gas do not reflect the
> losses. However, over the long term the costs are
> there - Global Warming
> could cost the world economy trillions of $ by 2075.

Well said.  Destroying the planet is not efficient in
the sense of having any real use-value for us.  Hell,
it's not even "cost-efficient".

As socialism would essentially be a grassroots,
democratic association of producers using their social
wealth on the basis of need, the question of
superfluous labour arises when one compares how wealth
is spent under capitalist rule and how wealth will be
measured and used when we freely produce and consume
it.

Earth to humanity: "Stop using fossil fuel."

Humanity to Earth: "We will as soon as we control the
system we produce."

Wobbly regards,
Mike B)







=====
"Man first begins to philosophize when the necessitites of life are supplied."  Aristotle

"determinatio est negatio"  Spinoza

"There are no ordinary cats."  Colette

http://au.profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list