X-Envelope-to: biosph-l@ubvm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"biosph-l@ubvm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: MDUGAN
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:44:00 PDT
Reply-To:     Marianne Dugan <MDUGAN@OREGON.BITNET>
From:         Marianne Dugan <MDUGAN@OREGON.BITNET>
Subject:      capitalism/environment

>       I would be very pleased if you could provide me with some theoretical
>'tips' concerning this nexus between capitalism and environmental
>degradation.
>       Furthermore, if any of you might have some ideas concerning the negative
>relation between the concept of social hierarchy and a "good" environment,
>I would be very pleased.
>                       Sincerely, David Treston.

I took a course last year called "Environment & Energy," and our
textbook had an excerpt I very much enjoyed reading, from M
arvin Harris' "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches:  The Riddles of
Culture" (1974).  The excerpt in our book (from pp. 11-32 of the
book) explains how, contrary to popular belief, studies of energy
costs and energy yields show that "primitive" or undeveloped countries
(e.g., India) make more efficient use of their energy resources
than do developed nations.  For instance, the energy efficiency
of converting cattle feed into resources usable by humans -- e.
g., work in the fields, food -- is 17% in India and 4% in the
United States.  So "the higher standard of living enjoyed by the
industrialnations isnot the result of greater productive
efficiency, but of an enormously expanded increase in the amount
of energy available per person. . . . Automobiles and airplanes
are faster than oxcarts, but they do not use energy more
efficiently.  In fact, more calories go up in useless heat and
smoke during a single day of traffic jams in the United States
than is wasted by all the cows in India during an entire
year. . . . If you want to see a real sacred cow, go out and look
at the family car."

Another interesting excerpt in the book, though one whose point
of view I didn't totally agree with, was Thomas C. Schelling's "
On the Ecology of Micromotives" from "The Public Interest," vol.
25, p. 59-98 (1971).  It has to do with the problem
of getting people to "abstain from something that imposes costs
on others" or to "take the trouble to do something that benefits
himself not at all but will be highly appreciated."  He discusses
these problems re: the environment and economics.  He also wrote
a book called "Micromotives and Macrobehavior" (1978).

Another source that might be relevant is work by Amory Lovins,
re: "soft energy paths" versus the "traditional" "hard" energy
paths used.  That is, the economic and environmental impacts of
our current high-impact energy use as compared to a "soft energy
structure."  He discusses the "technical and sociopolitical
structure" of energy systems.  Soft energy 1) relies on renewable
energy flows; 2) relies on diversifying energy use; 3)
is flexible and relatively low technology, that is, easily
accessible technologically, easy to understand rather than "
unsophisticated"; 4) is matched in scale and geographic
distribution to end use needs, "taking advantage of the free
distribution of natural energy flows"; 5) is matched in energy
quality to end-use needs -- that is, using a nuke plant to power
a toaster is "like cutting butter with a chainsaw.  That sort of
practice is "superfluous, wasteful, and expensive" and "
inelegant."  Lovins concludes that "the pattern of commitments of
resources and time required for the hard energy path and the
pervasive infrastructure that it accretes gradually makes the
soft path less and less attainable."

For a more status quo, development is ok, sort of viewpoint, read
Sam Schurr, published by Resources for the Future.

(Sorry some of these references are old -- my textbook was
published in 1983!)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Dugan  mdugan@oregon.uoregon.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU