------------------------------------------ -- EZ A SZÁM CSAK TEXT FORMÁBAN LÉTEZIK -- ------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 22:48:23 EST Subject: *** FORUM *** #168 Tartalomjegyzek: ---------------- Felado : 72600.3046@compuserve.com Temakor : Corporate Crimes =============================================== Felado : 72600.3046@compuserve.com Beerkezett: Sun Mar 10 21:36:34 EST 1991 Temakor : Corporate Crimes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - There is something fundamentally wrong in treating the earth as if it were a business in liquidation. Herman Daly, economist Kedves Zalan, >A Nation tenyleg egy jo ujsag, egyebkent a kozonsegesebb lapok kozul >nekem az Economist tetszik a legjobban, es nem az amerikai Time vagy >Newsweek. Orulok, hogy sikerult felkeltenem erdeklodesedet a The Nation irant. Az Economist valoban nem rossz ujsag, ha arra kivancsi az ember, hogy mi fontos a business vilagnak. Nekem a business ember szemszogebol tekinteni a vilagot egy kicsit egyhangu, meg nem is az en vilagom. Persze a The Nation is egyoldalu a maga modjan: a vilagot altalaban alulrol folfele szemleli. Ez a perspektiva hozzam kozelebb all, mert nagyjabol ez az en latoszogem is (innen alulrol). Igy a ket ujsag egyuttes olvasasaval valoszinuleg egeszsegesebb az ember szellemi taplalkozasa. (Wholesome nutrition, ahogy a health food hivok fogalmaznak;-)) >Egyebkent az alternativ energiforrasokat megfojto olajtarsasagokban lehet >valami, de azert szeretnem ezt az egeszet mas forrasbol is megerositve >latni. En tul szkeptikus vagyok ahhoz, hogy siman higgyek egy konyvnek. OK. Szep dolog a szkeptikussag, hadd adjak hat meg egy konyv cimet Ray Reece konyven kivul (The Sun Betrayed - A Report on the Corporate Seizure of U.S. Solar Energy Development, egyebkent a kiado a South End Press es zomeben hivatalos kormany papirokra es szenatusi kihallgatasokra tamaszkodik.): Richard Rudolph, Power Struggle: The hundred year war over electricity (Harper & Row, 1986). Mindket konyvet nehez megszerezni, I wonder why :->. (Kulonosen nem ajanlom a mainstream chain konyvesboltokat: Dalton, Crown, stb). Meg ehhez a temahoz appendixkent ide masoltam a Greenpeace bulletin board rendszererol egy irast, ld. alabb. >Nem lehet, hogy egyszeruen tenyleg nagyok az un. 'trivialis' >technikai nehezsegek, es egyszeruen meg nem lehet pl. a napenergiabol >gazdasagosan nagy mennyisegben aramot gyartani? Nem, a problema itt sem a technikaval van, hanem a politikai koncepcioval. A napelembol eloallitott elektromos energia igaz, hogy a szennel eloallitottnak 4-5-szorosebe kerul , de csak ha mind a kettot kozpontilag allitjak elo. A napelem nagy elonye azonban az, hogy decentralizalhato, vagyis lokalisan eloallithato, ezert kikuszoboli a kozponti energiaelosztasnal fellepo energiaatviteli koltsegeket es az annak soran fellepo energia vesztesegeket. Az igazi problema tehat itt is politikai: a kozponti elosztasu energiatermelo vallalatok nem akarnak profitjukrol es businessukrol lemondani, bar kezdenek vedekezo pozicioba szorulni. A masik problema a mainstream kozgazdaszok szuklatokorusege, az, hogy leegyszerusitett szabadpiaci modellekkel dolgoznak es az energia eloallitasanak araba nem kalkulaljak bele annak tarsadalmi es kornyezeti koltsegeit. Peldaul az energia kerdeskoreben szakertokent szamon tartott fizikus Amory Lovinsnak meg az obol-haboru elott vegzett szamitasai szerint, ha a Perzsa obolben az olajmezok s hajozasi utvonalak katonai felugyeletenek koltsegeit is betudnak az olaj araba, akkor annak hordonkent szaz dollar felett lenne az ara. Vagy a Pace egyetem uj tanulmanya szerint, mig Amerikaban az elektromossag a fogyasztoknak atlag hat es fel centjebe kerl kilowattorankent, addig az eloallitas tarsadalmi, kornyezeti es egeszsegugyi koltsege, melyet nem szamlaznak a fogyasztoknak, atlagosan tovabbi harom centbe kerul kworankent. >Amit pedig a tomegkozlekedesrol irtal, hat abban nem nagyon hiszek. Nem >lehet, hogy sokkal egyszerubb volt az ok, ti. hogy az USAban mar 30 >korul a kisemberek is tudtak autot venni, es egyszeruen arra volt igeny? A ketto nem zarja ki egymast. Valoban a Ford futoszalagja lehozta a kocsik arat annyira, hogy azt egyre tobben meg tudtak venni es igeny is volt ra. Emellett azonban a nagy autogyarak, elsosorban a GM meglehetosen manipulalta a piacot. Respektalom szkeptikussagodat, igy mindjart most tobb forrast is megadok, ahol arrol olvashatsz, hogyan szamolta fel a GM a nagyvarosok tomegkozlekedeset. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, Sierra Club Books, 1988. Barry Commoner, The Poverty of Power, Bantam Books, 1976. (Ez ugyan regi konyv, megis mindenkinek figyelmebe ajanlom, aki az energia es felhasznalasanak kerdesei irant erdeklodik. O volt az elsok kozott pl. aki felhivta a figyelmet, hogy ha az energia felhasznalas hatekonysagarol beszelunk, akkor azt a termodinamika 2. fotetelebol erdemes eredeztetni, nem pedig a hagyomanyos modon az elsobol.) Tovabba, az Utne Reader-ben is olvashatsz a GM vs. public transport kerdesrol, ha jol emlekszem a 86-os junius-juliusi szamban. Ha ez sem eleg, akkor nezd meg meg a Harpers 81-es februari szamat: Jonathan Kwitney, The Great Transportation Conspiracy. Mivel Commoner konyvet regen adtak ki es ezert talan nehez hozzaferni, hadd idezzek belole par sort. As late as 1936, 40,000 streetcars operated in the U.S. By 1955 only 5000 remained. The process that dismembered this extensive, highperformance transportation system has now been documented in a remarkable report prepared by Bradford C. Snell for the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In great detail, Snell describes how urban trolley lines were dismantled by corporations established by the General Motors Corporation as it set out to create a market for its new line of buses. According to GM's general counsel, the corporation "decided that the only way this new market for city buses could be created was for it to finance the conversion from streetcars to buses in some small cities." GM organized a company that bought up trolley lines. Once in control of the company, GM dismantled the trolley line and replaced it with GM buses. According to the general counsel, in each case the company "successfully motorized the city, turned the management over to other interests and liquidated its investment." Thus GM's interest was not to provide the cities with transportation but to sell buses. Censured by the American Transit Association for these actions, GM dissolved its transit corporation, only to form a new one a few years later in collaboration with Standard Oil of California and the Firestone Tire Company, which went about the same business of buying up and then destroying trolley lines. According to Snell, "By 1949, GM had been involved in the replacement of more than 100 electric transit systems with GM buses in 45 cities including New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles." A masodik lepes aztan termeszetesen az volt, hogy a GM felszamolta a buszjaratok nagy reszet is, igaz a buszjaratok egy resze kesobb visszatert a nagyvarosokba, de addigra a lakossag nagy resze mar kocsitulajdonos volt. Az ugy egyebkent birosag ele is kerult 49-ben, es a GM-et el is iteltek. A buntetes ? Otezer dollar!... Hogy egy kicsit elmeletibb szintre ugorjak, az effajta manipulaciora vezette be az osztrak szarmazasu tortenesz Ivan Illich a "radikalis monopolizalas" fogalmat, ami egy vallalat piaci egyeduralmaval szemben azt jelenti, hogy valamilyen emberi szukseglet kielegiteset egyetlen lehetseges modra redukaljak, a mi esetunkben arra, hogy Amerika nagy reszeben A-bol B-be eljutni manapsag csak kocsival lehetseges. (Illich gondolataibol tobbet megtudhatsz a Tools for Conviviality es Towards a History of Needs c. konyveibol.) Ha a GM egyeb disznosagaira is kivancsi vagy, tudom ajanlani a Michael Moore rendezte Roger and Me c. dokumentumfilmet. Szerintem ez az utobbi evek egyik legjobb amerikai filmje, videon is kikolcsonozheto. A GM elektromos kocsijaitol azert en nem esnek transzba. Ilyeneket Europaban mar jopar eve csinalnak. Udv. Leirer Laszlo From: TOM LENT To: NATHAN SANTRY (Rcvd) Subj: FY92 DOE BUDGET ANALYSIS Highlights/Lowlights of the Department of Energy FY 1992 Budget Analysis by Tom Lent Greenpeace San Francisco February 13, 1991 * Overall the DOE budget totals $18.6 billion, up $900 million from FY 1991. The increase is primarily in new funds to clean up the radioactive contamination in military nuclear facilities. * Bush's budget continues the pattern of the last decade of taking funds away from energy development and putting more funds into nuclear weapons. Atomic Energy Defense Activities now receive almost $12 billion, accounting for almost two-thirds of the entire DOE budget. * The second largest expenditure ($4 billion) is devoted to civilian nuclear power activities and eats up 22% of the budget. Only 15% of the budget remains for all other activities of the Department. * Bush appears unwilling to put money where his mouth is. In the State of the Union, Bush declared that he had prepared "a comprehensive national energy strategy that calls for energy conservation...". In his budget, he slashed energy conservation expenditures by over one-third. Most conservation assistance programs were slashed completely. * The president's budget gives energy conservation under $300 million, less than 2% of the budget, and gives renewables less than half that amount. Bush is spending more to shoot for oil each day in Operation Desert Storm than for an entire year of efforts to develop the efficiency and renewable alternatives. >Egyebkent a 70es evekben nagy divat volt ilyesmikkel foglalkozni, >[marmint napenergiaval - l.l.] de valahogy nem sikerult valami nagy >attorest elerni. !!!!! Zalan figyelj: !!!!! * This is a continuation of a decade long effort by Reagan and Bush to neutralize Federal solar energy programs. Federal renewable R&D funding peaked at $718.5 million in FY 1980 and has been slashed 90% in current dollars. * In attempting to inflate the conservation budget figures and soften the appearance of the cuts, the administration has illegally added in $30 million of oil overcharge funds. The overcharge court settlements clearly specified that the money was to be returned to the affected consumers as funding for new programs that they would not have already received, not to replace funds that would have been used for preexisting programs. * Bush's kinder and gentler energy policy brutally targets the poor by eliminating the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) entirely ($200M in FY91 to $0 in FY92) and slashing the Low Income Heating Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) by over one third ($1610M in FY91 to $1025 in FY92). * Last heating season, before the fuel oil price increases caused by the Gulf conflict, LIHEAP was unable to provide assistance to more than half of all eligible households. As the recession pushes more into poverty, even more will be left to choose between heating and eating this year. It should be noted that the minority groups that disproportionately make up the low income population hurt by these cuts also are disproportionately represented in the armed forces on the front lines in the war. African Americans, while only 12% of the total US population, make up almost 30% of the army's combat troops * Bush also demonstrated his deep concern for education and health care by eliminating the $67 million dollar state administered program of energy conservation grants to schools and hospitals. * Solar and conservation were not the only technologies to lose money to the nuclear industries. Fossil fuel technology R&D was also cut in half, including complete elimination of the $150 million clean coal technology program. Department of Energy FY 1992 Budget Budget Authority in Millions of Dollars Selected Items 1991 1992 Change 91-92 Total Budget 17671.8 100% 18576.6 100% 904.8 5% Energy Conservation R&D & Asst 465.2 2.6% 295.9 1.6% -169.2 -36% Solar and other Renewables 129.4 0.7% 142.9 0.8% 13.5 10% Geothermal 27.3 0.2% 20.2 0.1% -7.1 -26% Hydropower 1.0 <.1% 1.0 <.1% 0.1 5% Energy Storage Systems 12.7 0.1% 7.2 <.1% -5.5 -43% Clean Coal Technology 150.0 0.8% 0.0 0% -150.0 -100% Fossil Energy R&D 459.0 2.6% 227.0 1.2% -232.0 -51% Civilian Nuclear & Gnl Science 3472.7 20% 4176.8 22% 704.0 20% Atomic Energy Defense 10967.1 62% 11768.0 63% 800.9 7% Sources: FY 1992 Budget documents, except 1980 renewables budget from Safe Energy Communications Council, Renewable Energy #5, and minorities in armed forces from LA Times, 1/8/91.