. In addition, when
>statements that the pollution from running an electricity generating
>plant is a moral question seems to ignore the fact that many people
>really need this electricty. There is a goddamned good reason some
>plants here in California are given a must run status (i.e. no matter
>what the plant must run) since otherwise there are risks of brown and
>black outs. I certainly wouldn't want to be hooked up to a respirator
>during a black out. Many of these arguments hold for other commodities.

steve, as you've pointed out many times, the issues here are very complex
and it's very difficult to get a grasp of all the variables.... so, to
simplify just for the sake of argument, if it were the case that we had to
either do away with ALL electricity now, or be sure to perish as a race
within ten years, what would be your choice? my basic assertion is that we
don't NEED electricity... not fundamentally... how long did the human race
survive without it? sure, we are conditioned to rely heavily on it, but i
don't think that we are too far gone AS A RACE to do without it.... and of
course that person on the respirator would die, but that is a fate that none
of us will escape....

spirit

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability


>Actually, I am playing off of the overly vague and simple (most likely
>unintentional) statements made by Steven Bissel. He wanted to argue
>that pollution is a criminal activity. Clearly this is an untenable
>position and I doubt he actually holds it. A more reasonable position
>is considering firms (or individuals) that pollute despite laws to the
>contrary as engaging in a criminal activity. Of this I have little or
>no objection as I don't want some company dumping toxic waste into my
>drinking water either (actually this would probably make LA's tap
>water more drinkable).
>
>Also, I feel that there is a wee bit of animosity directed at those
>who look at the problem from the "economists" perspective so pardon if
>I take a few cheap shots at some sloppy arguements. In addition, when
>statements that the pollution from running an electricity generating
>plant is a moral question seems to ignore the fact that many people
>really need this electricty. There is a goddamned good reason some
>plants here in California are given a must run status (i.e. no matter
>what the plant must run) since otherwise there are risks of brown and
>black outs. I certainly wouldn't want to be hooked up to a respirator
>during a black out. Many of these arguments hold for other commodities.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>---"M. Corey Watts" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> At 11:32 AM 11/9/98 -0800, you wrote:
>> >Yes Corey it is that simple. It is that simple because ALL firms
>> >pollute to some degree. Thus, ALL firms are engaged in criminal
>> >activity and since zero pollution is the goal then you shut down ALL
>> >firms. Why is this so difficult?
>> >
>> >This is why I think the costs of reducing pollution to zero can for
>> >all intents and purposes be considered infinite. Given this,
>shutting
>> >down all firms is not an option and neither is achieving zero
>pollution.
>> >
>> >Steve
>> >
>>
>> Now you sound patronising...but email has a tendency to confuse
>things, so
>> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try to respond as best
>I'm able:
>>
>> I do think this is a simplistic conclusion derived from rather
>simplistic
>> thinking.
>>
>> From previous posts, it appears you take great delight taking a
>contrary
>> position to almost any suggestion of reducing consumption, pollution,
>> environmental destruction or what have you. This is not to suggest
>that
>> your comments and thoughts are without merit, far from it; your
>Devil's
>> Advocacy provokes critical thinking to some extent, which is
>certainly a
>> good thing. (For instance, I'm admit grave doubts concerning the
>> possibility of coverting to a zero-growth economy and sending the
>> unemployment rate soaring...but I am still learning and open to
>suggestions.)
>>
>> Paraphrasing the jargon of Australian politics, you are: "Keeping the
>> Bastards honest!"
>>
>> In this case, however, you appear to have lost some sense of the
>complexity
>> of the situation. I'm not sure whether or not you're assuming that
>> we/I/environmentalists believe that ALL pollution is "criminal" or
>that
>> anybody has suggested "shutting down all firms."
>>
>> Corey
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Corey Watts (PGDipSc Student)
>> Centre for Conservation Biology
>> The University of Queensland
>> St Lucia, Qld, AUSTRALIA 4068.
>>
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Telephone: +61 7 3365 2475
>> Facsimile: +61 7 3365 1655
>> CCB Website: http://www.ccb.uq.edu.au/website
>>
>> "Wings and feathers on the crying, mysterious Ages...
>> ...all that is right, all that is good."
>> D.H. Lawrence, "The Wild Common."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%