Every economy, in it's most fundamental form, takes some raw material from the natural world, applies energy to it, and ends up with a product to trade or to sell. The raw material may be a tree or a rock or a plant or a fish or a cow. The energy may be the food we use for energy to do the work, or coal in a steam engine or oil in a chainsaw.
We may take a piece of flint from nature, add work (chipping it with a large flint napping stone) and produce an arrow head we trade for some of the hunter's catch. Or we may mine limestone and iron ore and use fossil energy to turn it into a nuclear power station. It is the same process on a different scale.
The problem is today that we have built an economy, and even a level of population, based on a very energy-intense and cheap form of fuel, and we intend to transition to a cheap but low energy-intensity series of fuels that cannot possibly support the current levels of population. Not even 20% of it!
We are way past the point of political solutions in the current framework even out opportunity to invest the remaining fossil fuels in the transition technologies hasn't worked at the scale required. Public ownership of fuels would once have been a worthwhile proposal, but is already irrelevant to the bigger energy picture. Energy is everything and without it, the political choices fall outside of political theories of left and right, or socialist or communist.
In desperation, in an energy crisis, it'll be whatever works on that day.
It probably is much too late to switch energy sources to avoid the worst of global warming. But as the age of constant catastrophe arrives--as it becomes people's reality and not a future possibility--asking them to live with the intense cognitive dissonance of a fossil fuel economy, without any realistic plan to transition, is adding insult to injury. Our only way of finding dignity in the degridation is knowing that we are trying to move in the right direction, not the wrong one. We can't ask everyone to simply give up hope, no matter the physical circumstances. Petrocommunism is about implimenting a plan of collective action that will restore agency and dignity to the working class amidst climate catastrophe.
I am reminded of the 5 stages of Grief; denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance., not necessarily in that order. At first I was thinking of the victims of the current hurricanes in Florida, but then wondered if you are in 'denial' or in the 'bargaining' phases yourself?
I understand how confrontational the coming crashes will be, and how we have created our own myths of invincibility, that there is always a solution, that we have the power of gods to fix things. But sometimes the structure is too fragile. Sometimes the damage is too great. Sometimes the doctor simply can't save the patient. Sometimes we have to get used to the idea that life has just changed, drastically, and our model of the world is now fundamentally different to anything we ever expected. There is no 'business as usual'. Or any business at all except survival.
The remaining fossil fuels will be apportioned by governments, firstly for the military, then for agriculture and food production, transportation, processing and distribution, and aviation, and industry, particularly chemicals. Whatever may be left MAY be available for domestic heating and public/private transport. That is the way of things, and there is no petrocummunism on anyone's agenda.
I don't think anyone's feeling are on anyone's agenda except politicians, and only then if they happen to live in swing states!
Governments already do, with gov't contracts, drilling licenses, tax breaks, subsidies, funding pipelines, subsidising refining and transport. Ultimately by requisitioning fuel for the military and backroom deals with oil majors. No gov't in the world doesn't control it 's essential energy requirements.
yeah but they don't control the market for FFs beyond their essential requirements. I'm asking that they outlaw the private sale of fossil fuels. you want fuel, you buy it from the government. This goes well beyond what is possible under liberal capitalism
Not at all. All governments have 'emergency powers'. Look at what happened in many countries during Covid.
Then there is the market; fossil fuel production is flatlining even as demand rises, leaving an increasing gap between supply and demand.
But the oil producers know that if they raise prices beyond, say $90 a barrel to reduce demand, then Western economies (i.e. their principal market) stall or go into recession, so they try to keep production and prices in that 'Goldilocks' zone.
However, how long before there will be real shortages and governments will have to decide to supply critical infrastructure; military first, then food production, energy production etc. At some point there simply isn't any left over for private customers at the end of that queue.
Fuel IS the mechanism! It isn't just part of it.
Every economy, in it's most fundamental form, takes some raw material from the natural world, applies energy to it, and ends up with a product to trade or to sell. The raw material may be a tree or a rock or a plant or a fish or a cow. The energy may be the food we use for energy to do the work, or coal in a steam engine or oil in a chainsaw.
We may take a piece of flint from nature, add work (chipping it with a large flint napping stone) and produce an arrow head we trade for some of the hunter's catch. Or we may mine limestone and iron ore and use fossil energy to turn it into a nuclear power station. It is the same process on a different scale.
The problem is today that we have built an economy, and even a level of population, based on a very energy-intense and cheap form of fuel, and we intend to transition to a cheap but low energy-intensity series of fuels that cannot possibly support the current levels of population. Not even 20% of it!
We are way past the point of political solutions in the current framework even out opportunity to invest the remaining fossil fuels in the transition technologies hasn't worked at the scale required. Public ownership of fuels would once have been a worthwhile proposal, but is already irrelevant to the bigger energy picture. Energy is everything and without it, the political choices fall outside of political theories of left and right, or socialist or communist.
In desperation, in an energy crisis, it'll be whatever works on that day.
It probably is much too late to switch energy sources to avoid the worst of global warming. But as the age of constant catastrophe arrives--as it becomes people's reality and not a future possibility--asking them to live with the intense cognitive dissonance of a fossil fuel economy, without any realistic plan to transition, is adding insult to injury. Our only way of finding dignity in the degridation is knowing that we are trying to move in the right direction, not the wrong one. We can't ask everyone to simply give up hope, no matter the physical circumstances. Petrocommunism is about implimenting a plan of collective action that will restore agency and dignity to the working class amidst climate catastrophe.
I am reminded of the 5 stages of Grief; denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance., not necessarily in that order. At first I was thinking of the victims of the current hurricanes in Florida, but then wondered if you are in 'denial' or in the 'bargaining' phases yourself?
I understand how confrontational the coming crashes will be, and how we have created our own myths of invincibility, that there is always a solution, that we have the power of gods to fix things. But sometimes the structure is too fragile. Sometimes the damage is too great. Sometimes the doctor simply can't save the patient. Sometimes we have to get used to the idea that life has just changed, drastically, and our model of the world is now fundamentally different to anything we ever expected. There is no 'business as usual'. Or any business at all except survival.
The remaining fossil fuels will be apportioned by governments, firstly for the military, then for agriculture and food production, transportation, processing and distribution, and aviation, and industry, particularly chemicals. Whatever may be left MAY be available for domestic heating and public/private transport. That is the way of things, and there is no petrocummunism on anyone's agenda.
I don't think anyone's feeling are on anyone's agenda except politicians, and only then if they happen to live in swing states!
how will governments apportion these FFs absent government control of FFs?
Governments already do, with gov't contracts, drilling licenses, tax breaks, subsidies, funding pipelines, subsidising refining and transport. Ultimately by requisitioning fuel for the military and backroom deals with oil majors. No gov't in the world doesn't control it 's essential energy requirements.
yeah but they don't control the market for FFs beyond their essential requirements. I'm asking that they outlaw the private sale of fossil fuels. you want fuel, you buy it from the government. This goes well beyond what is possible under liberal capitalism
Not at all. All governments have 'emergency powers'. Look at what happened in many countries during Covid.
Then there is the market; fossil fuel production is flatlining even as demand rises, leaving an increasing gap between supply and demand.
But the oil producers know that if they raise prices beyond, say $90 a barrel to reduce demand, then Western economies (i.e. their principal market) stall or go into recession, so they try to keep production and prices in that 'Goldilocks' zone.
However, how long before there will be real shortages and governments will have to decide to supply critical infrastructure; military first, then food production, energy production etc. At some point there simply isn't any left over for private customers at the end of that queue.