[Marxism] Trawling the oceans to exhaustion

[S. Artesian]

Hans,

I appreciate the reply to several of the issues.  Here's my response:

1.  If it's the wrong question to ask, how can you determine that in fact 
the era is over?  How do we measure cheapness if not by cost?  I don't know 
how an argument can be made that the era of cheap oil, or coal, or gas is 
over without actually examining "cheap."

We are not arguing over the wisdom of conservation. There is no argument 
about conservation.  There is no argument about dramatically curtailing the 
impact to the environment.   It is the argument that supplies are being 
depleted to a point of catastrophe, and that as we reduce those supplies we 
are destroying the environment that requires investigation.  I think we need 
to decouple the issue of environmental damage from the pseudo-science of 
oil depletion (and just to make it obvious, I believe that peak oil 
arguments today are transparently Malthusian, and Malthusian in the way that 
eugenics is Malthusian-- that is to say, a pseudo-science which gains in 
stature the more the fear that can be generated).

You make the claim that an era of cheap fossil fuels is ending.  Where is 
the evidence for that?  In the market prices for oil?  We all know enough 
about the irrationality of markets to discount that evidence.

I think what we want or don't want to do about fossil fuels for future 
generations has  nothing to do with an economic characterization of an end 
to cheap fossil fuels

2. Yes, methyl hydrates trapped by the cold ocean waters present a potential 
problem.  But certainly the supply is there.  Which was my point in bringing 
it up.  As for the other hydrocarbon sources-- there is no indication that 
natural gas production has peaked, that reserves are being exhausted, and 
that replacement rates equal to more than 100% of production cannot be 
achieved and maintained.  Natural gas can be cheap, more cheap, less cheap, 
expensive, less expensive to extract, but there is no indication that we 
have consumed the "easy" portion of the world's supply.

3. Yes, Cuba shows how the greatest improvements are dependent upon the 
quality of PUBLIC HEALTH care; the basics of sanitation, clean water, pre 
and post natal care, basic nutritional values.  But what about housing? 
Cuba's housing stock is in general in pretty bad shape due to the US 
embargo.  Is there any possible way to improve the housing stock without 
increasing the energy applied to the construction, maintenance, and use of 
such housing.  Not likely.  That does not mean that such housing cannot be 
accomplished with more energy efficiency than the wasteful practics of 
capitalism, but Cuba has to, and will turn to increasing its energy use to 
meet the day to day needs of the population-- to achieve just that 
schooling, just that food security, just that housing need--  and all that 
takes infrastructure and transportation.  Locomotives don't run hydrogen 
fuel cells, and the relations between city and countryside, in order to 
bring the benefits of both to each cannot be satisfied by mule carts, or 
relying exclusively on the natural manuring of fields unless the livestock 
population is going to be dramatically increased, which has an interesting 
impact, since livestock produced methane, not from excreted waste, but from 
digestion and through respiration is one of the major sources of methane in 
the atmosphere.

4. To say the earth has a carrying capacity does not only mean that we 
cannot go on indefinitely multiplying the species.  It means the earth has a 
defined, physical, and knowable limit.  That is what capacity means.  That 
is why this argument is so dangerous, so Malthusian.  What is that capacity? 
How was it determined.  Who decides when enough is enough, and, if we are 
already over that capacity by, as some have argued, 100%, who gets to decide 
who lives and who dies?  If this is science, then it's science and how do we 
calculate and allocate resources?

5. One child per woman? Do you actually intend to dictate people's 
reproductive lives?  We are not talking about idle debate or discussion.  If 
the situation is a dire as you suggest, then the issue is enforcement.  And 
why do you propose that the limitation be placed on women instead of men? 
While I know you think Marxists' adherence to the rigid categories of 
Marxist analysis regarding these matters makes Marxists irrelevant, I think 
it is precisely this inherent demand to enforce reproductive restriction on 
women that makes "catastrophic" environmentalism such fertile ground for 
authoritarian Malthusianism.


6. One more thing, regarding Monbiot and fishing and oil prices.  Monbiot 
lets every government off the hook for oil prices.  Monbiot says there is 
nothing any government can do about that.  Is that really impeccable logic? 
How can anyone be serious about that after examining how OPEC has done the 
bourgeoisie's bidding every step of the way since 1973?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ehrbar" <ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] Trawling the oceans to exhaustion