it seems like most countries are more concerned about
balance of trade policies than in protecting the
environment. governments tend to operate to favor
whoever is in power. we need new models. in the west
we raise interest rates as a means of slowing the
economy and thus combating inflation; yet, the
principle argument against an energy tax is that it
would be a drag on the economy. we should use energy
tax policy in the same way that we use interest rates.
why not keep interest rates permanently low and raise
energy taxes on industry when the economy becomes
overheated instead? unfortunately, it is not
realistic to expect enough people to conserve on their
own without punitive incentives. nor is it realistic
to expect government to resist the influence of the
corporate lobbies. eventually we may succeed in
slowing down the rate of increase in greenhouse gasses
after the damage is irrevocable. then nature may
reach a new equilibrium and life will adapt. "think
of it as evolution in action". the costs and
repercussions of reducing habits using energy from an
economy based on planned obsolescence to one based on
limits and an environmentally friendly policy would be
far less disruptive to our planet. when the rest of
the world starts to consume at our conspicuous level
then the consequence will be extreme collapse, unless
means are found to implement cleaner technology and
less waste. i agree that we need to conserve energy
and and reduce our use of non-renewable sources of
energy if society is to become sustainable. countries
like china and india can lead the way by not emulating
the west. china with its central government has the
power to develop new approaches for energy,
communication, transportation, distribution,
consumption, education, agriculture and
industrialization in general if they are willing to
abandon the capitalistic model. countries like cuba
have been forced to rely on organic farming and herbal
medicines because of the embargo. in new zealand it
is is illegal to use pesticides. their meat animals
are not injected with steroids, anti-biotics or
hormone, but they do damage the ecology with their
grazing. reducing meat consumption by half would make
an enormous difference. the scandinavian countries
use their resources to benefit all of society rather
than a select few so better models do exist.
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
- Max Battcher wrote:
> On 5/9/07, jon louis mann <net_democracy@...> wrote:1) I plan ahead. If I know it has to be there by Friday, I do
>> So what about all of the packages — and people —
>> that (in the words of the commercial)
>> "absolutely, positively, have to be there by 9 AM"?
>> -- Ronn! :)
>> for the present, those people have to be satisfied,
>> but some day, in the not too distant furure, it will
>> no longer be realistic to ship freight all over the
>> world to meet deadlines,
>> -- jlm
> I think there's a place for high deadline freight/passenger travel...
> but I think that so often in our culture we are forgetting that there
> is just as much a place as "leisurely" travel, and that if there is no
> reason for it to be there next day, why pay for "next day air". Our
> culture is quagmired in this "do it yesterday" hustle and bustle and
> sometimes we forget to take our time to even enjoy our meals...
something about sending it no later than Tuesday. If it's big, I try to
get it sent off at least a week in advance. It gets there when it needs to.
2) Leisurely travel is nice.
3) Leisurely meals with good company are *very* nice. I'm the sort
that will be the last one kicked out of the restaurant if I'm in a
situation where I can get away with it, and at least one other person is
willing to stay until a minute before I get kicked out. :)