Hi Jurriaan:
I don't think there's going to be any agreement among capitalist nations about
environmental policies until AFTER the next expansion is well under way - and,
by that time, the global environment will be worse and the climate may
be beyond the "tipping point". Until there is once again expanded capitalist
reproduction, they will put all social and environmental concerns and possible
reforms which don't directly contribute to capital accumulation "on the back burner".
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27148094/from/ET
If there is to be agreement on effective environmental action or social
reforms (e.g. to deal with global inequality) in the immediate period ahead
then activists and large segments of the working class and global poor
will have to first turn up the heat, imo.
In solidarity, Jerry
> A socialist however would pose the question: who really pays for the crisis?
> More specifically, who pays the price for insuring the environmental risk? One
> thing you can be sure of, a whole bunch of people are going to keep consuming
> like there's no tomorrow anyway, they have to do something with all their funds.
> The advantages of the markets devolve on those with a strong bargaining position,
> and the disadvantages devolve on the weak. A "general" cost-benefit analysis will
> not reveal this, because its accounts do not reveal who exactly gets the benefits,
> and who is burdened with the costs.
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Oct 15 08:33:22 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 15:12:03 EST