Re: [Pen-l] smart grid question

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
On Jun 9, 2009, at 8:42 PM, raghu wrote:

> Reduced energy consumption is essential. A point that I wholeheartedly
> agree with.

Doyle;
I don't think it is reduced energy consumption that is the solution to  
the problem.  It is a livable balance of planetary resources.  Who  
knows what that means?  The primary issue is a potential carbon energy  
regime creating a run away heating of the planet.  Which in practice  
forces a move away from fossil fuels one way or the other for  
capitalism as well alternative people political powers structures.   
Whatever substitutes may arise there is no natural limit we know of  
that is less than or more than the current 'energy' regime we  
currently have.  We end up deciding to do what makes sense  
economically speaking.  I mean either sense in the capitalist sense or  
the community.  I think you (Raghu) advocate reducing energy usage  
because it sounds good to make sacrifices to make things better.  Or  
maybe it makes sense to you that a change over to another energy  
regime forces cutbacks.

Functionally one (pen-L'ers) wants that new regime to represent the  
people's interests.  And how that would look requires shifts that we  
can't calculate fully what will happen, because the people power is  
missing from the process right now.  Or that's how I think it best to  
find a balance-able process is a global system of people power.   
Capitalism will not produce balance by definition.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l