Bolivia Nationalizes Electricity Companies in Hopes of Improving Rural Access

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/12/30-0


Morales signs a decree allowing the takeover of shares in Empresa de Electricidad de La Paz (Electropaz) and Empresa de Luz y Fuerza de Oruro (Elfeo), Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera at the government palace in La Paz, Bolivia, Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012. (Reuters)

Bolivia President Evo Morales has nationalized two electricity distribution companies owned by Spanish utility company Iberdrola in the latest of several industry nationalizations since Morales took office, which has included oil, mining, telecommunications, and energy generation companies.

Morales said the move was an attempt to improve rural energy services in the country, adding that Iberdrola will be compensated according to the value of the company to be decided by an independent arbiter.

"We considered this measure necessary to ensure equitable energy tariffs ... and to see to it that the quality of electricity service is uniform in rural as well as urban areas," Morales said.

[NoOneMan]

1. So is this "good" or "bad"?

According to which ideology?

What is the ecological impact when every rural Bolivian can purchase and plug-in a refrigerator? Magic thinking aside, what is the ecological impact of supplying more people with cheaper energy (socialized or not)?

On a tangent, in the spirit of a simple "carrying capacity" thought, I wonder: what is the average sustainable standard of living 8 billion people can simultaneously have without causing environmental breakdown? Its a fine question to ask now that we are in the age of seeing many of these low consumption areas begin to develop and increase their consumption. It can often flip our ideas of what is "good" and "bad" upside down.

Economic and political forces--often thought of as "good"--that increase the global average standard of living may be imparting drastic consequences on our environment.

[tama]

2. Or plug-in computer to hook up with Internet and global social media

to share e.g. their local traditional ecological wisdom with other people...

If you really want to know what is very plainly "bad" is a 1st world consumerist with Ecological footprint of e.g. about 3,5 planets and member of nation and system hoarding up more than lions share of global resource pool through neocolonialist neoliberal structures while destroying the carrying capacity of the planet at increasing pace... and then condemning "poor" 3rd, 4th or 5th worlder for getting access to electric grid because it could "ruin the planet"...

So, to answer your question, yes this is good according to ideology of equality and the basic ethical axiom of Golden/Silver rule.

[NoOneMan]

3. Oh, I'm not condemning but re-framing progress from an environmental standpoint

Thats why I asked, what is the average sustainable standard of living for 8 billion people.

If one believes we should strive for equality and that average is, far, far, far below where the first world nations are, then its a long path down, eh?

Are first world nations willing to make that sacrifice to such an average? Do they then really believe in equality at their core? How do we manage throttling progress in the name of environmental sustainability? How do we spread that progress out (if it is in fact environmentally damaging)?

Likely, none of these questions will be answered, or likely be asked. There is a can to kick down the road.

[tama]

4. First we would need to know

what is sustainable and what is not, and is there sustainable dynamic process to reach state of sustainable production and consumption. And if this is a valid formulation of the question. We have a local contemporary academic philosopher here in Finland who talks a lot about "synnyistä", which could be translated as 'origins'/'births' or something like that, and is central concept in the shamanistic way of life and thought that is the background of our national epos 'Kalevala'. As a shamanistic society is based on the idea of sustainability, it needs to intimately know and follow the "deep origins/births" of their sustainable way of life, and as you point out, we are very much lacking in that knowledge in our contemporary globalized society.

There are some measures such as ecological footprint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint) that can have same use and value, and we have available and tested the "technical" know how of how to build at least materially sustainable horticultural ecocommunities.

To answer some or your questions, of course first world nations currently at the top of "civilization" hierarchy believe in class society and inequality. But now that the situation of energy economy is more or less a zero sum game, neoliberalism is doing one thing as promised, it's levelling the game and making former first world OECD countries IMF puppets with austerity programs and cutting consumption, while Chindia etc. are still increasing their consumption and slice of global cake.

But any case, there's little point for any individual trying to control the adaptation process from any imaginary top down position. The process is global and inclusive of me and you, not external object.

[NoOneMan]

7. We could learn so much from these belief structures

I feel modern religion has vastly exploited ingrained, instinctual spirituality to promote a cultural narrative of growth and progress. Science has had a bit of a hand at destroying all spirituality in general, and objectifying our system by breaking it into parts for study and domestication. Modern culture seems to be a bit lost and disconnected to what may be an instinctual way to perceive the world that many non-growth societies share. If there is to be a breakdown and any viability for our species thereafter--even as a scientist--I think that there may be a necessity to view the world in some type of pantheistic way if we can ever find a sustainable way to live.

Thanks for including bits about your people--you've sent me to wiki again.

But any case, there's little point for any individual trying to control the adaptation process from any imaginary top down position

There may come a time when, out of necessity, nation states attempt to do this overtly beyond their ability via market pressures (if that time is not upon us already). If an entire group of people can look themselves in the mirror and explicitly reject equality to their core, in the face of dwindling resources and an environment that can collapse no more, we may see even more world chaos.

[tama]

8. Liberal denial

The "monster" of realpolitik Henry Kissinger had hard words of truth for will-good liberals who despite their professed beliefs in "equality" demand and expect to keep on sucking the tit of realpolitik imperialist USA delivered by "bad guys" like Kissinger. Zerzan says that Kissingers challenge to liberal consumers can only be answered ethically and rationally by what then became known as "anarcho-primitivism". I have my disagreements with Zerzan, but his Kissinger story delivers the point well.

As for "spirituality", science speaks of theory of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind), which in some sense is projecting. The difference of animistic and shamanistic world views is that theory of mind is applied to the whole of cosmos, but in materialistic approach the logical conclusion is eliminative materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism). The question may or may not be unprovable, but certainly there is little if any evidence that is undeniable... but if you allow ethical considerations to mix with the equation, it seems very natural that even keeping the door open to animism and panpsychism as possibilities worth keeping in mind, and at least potentially extending theory of mind to whole of cosmos, will make a difference on how you act towards your environment. There is a world of difference considering (allmost) everything lifeless matter and just resources for your consumption and seeing some aspect of awareness and sentience in all parts of universe, with intrinsic value and dignity.

[XemaSab]

5. I totally hear what you're saying

but I'm sitting here in my comfortable house with central heat drinking my Peet's and pounding away on my MacBook, and I have serious problems telling someone else that they have to sit in the dark.

We're screwed.

[NoOneMan]

6. Pretty much

I come to the conclusion that we basically have no moral high ground to tell anyone to stop getting more comfortable, so all such growth will continue onward wreaking destruction. Most of the measures and steps towards efficiency on our part then really just going to free up resources for these developing nations.

On the other hand, this realization also led me to greatly question the very notion of progress (our own included). Every step up seems to have brought great environmental consequences. For the first time in my life, I question the ideas of socialism and other political structures that seem to merely increase growth and overall consumption. Its a strange state to be in.