José Antonio Rojas Nieto: Political Economy of Energy: The Sixth

M

and they ask the reasons That's why my elective course isn't just called Energy Economics, but also Political Economy of Energy and Climate Disaster. I'll cover the former a bit; we'll discuss the disastrous nature of climate change another time.

This week, my Fundamentals of Political Economy course began. First-year undergraduate students at our beloved UNAM: I am proud to welcome you! I propose my elective course, in continuation of my basic course. I propose introducing us to Aristotle's founding conception of the polis , and thereby capturing his global vision of the ways in which society guarantees not only life, but living well. He indicates this when adequate rematistics, adequate acquisition, is urgently needed.

And in this context, I propose that we begin to identify long-term trends, as Fernando Braudel suggests. Thus, we draw on Quesnay's original conception of social reproduction and net product; Adam Smith's brilliant insight into productive and unproductive labor, the potential of the former, and capital accumulation; and Robert Malthus's acute doubt about the uneven evolution of population growth and its self-sustaining capacity. Also, David Ricardo's suspicious perspective on the differential costs of the products of natural resource exploitation. And Karl Marx's continuity, but also his break with these classics.

Yes, I propose an initial but careful immersion in the classical conceptual apparatus and its critique in Marx. From there—I point out—we will enter, whenever you wish, into the analysis of energy. A tremendous challenge, a tremendous responsibility; moreover, fascinating and exciting due to the demand for justice entailed by the unequal exploitation, production, and appropriation of energy resources and their revenues. And the unequal responsibility for their damage, for their greenhouse gas emissions due to speculative labor.

What can be done in the face of all this, and the encouraging classical theoretical perspective and its critique in Marx? Generate net product, cry the physiocrats! Limit population growth, cry the vulgar Malthusians! Thank God for the misfortunes, claim the cynics! Rentiers, parasites, and speculators have nothing to say!

Fortunately, and in some ways, David Ricardo opens the analysis of productive and unproductive labor in greater depth; he emphasizes the labor that exploits natural resources, differentiating between the forces of their fertility and their location, and underscores the attention we must pay to the phenomena that arise in exchange. He compels us to discover and estimate the implicit transfers that hinder the well-being of the population and gives depth and greater meaning to the proposal to break down prices into wages, profits, and rents.

A wonderful reflection from the perceptive Ricardo! Although Marx—recognizing him as no one else—radically criticized his limitations, basically his inability to recognize that the surplus is unpaid labor and constitutes the principal transfer. This requires, he asserts, recognizing value as a non-natural historical social form and exchange value as a quantitative mechanism for recognizing private labor turned public and its complexity.

And there—right there—we see the long-term behavior of wages, profits, and income. And among these, energy, oil, natural gas, coal, and—strangely enough—sun, wind, endogenous heat, marine energy, biomass, and, oddly enough, electricity income. Well, this is the theoretical and methodological origin of the name of my elective course, Political Economy of Energy and Climate Disaster. Yes, climate disaster, about which I'll say a little more another time. It's an essential part of my life and instructs me. Therefore, I propose once again: "Follow the guidelines." Long-term; thin but firm. And live them block by block! Always in perspective. Always with enthusiasm. Always with hope. Always with excitement. Truly.

[email protected]