You ought to see some of the estimates that go into the net energy of ethanol from corn…now, that’s an equation.

Jeff

That would be one hell of an equation.

I kinda missed the segue from the Handmade Project to the electricity points.

Btw, I think we should clear up a point on the term capitalist also. Most people aren’t “capitalists” (mostly because it’s been wrongly defined). From “The Gospel of Work vs. the Gospel of Wealth” by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
“If we look at the United States in the 19th century, we see a popular culture that was, in a word, anti-capitalist,” Doukas said. “And this was reflected very much in the political scene of the time. You had to be in favor of the working man. You had to support and praise the common man. The basic idea is that work is what dignifies a person. It is an anti-aristocratic ideology. It goes way back, really. Aristocrats were characterized as parasites, as people who lived off the work of others. Whereas good, virtuous American people worked hard and were expected to enjoy the fruits of their labor.”

But when the corporations came in and took over, the major message was — no, it’s capital, not labor, that produces the wealth of society — it’s capital that deserves the greater consideration.”

Jeff

Yes, it’s true that more electricity is used at home. An automated factory can even function in the dark with the heating/air conditioning turned off. However, I wouldn’t think the machines themselves would be as efficient as organic lifeforms at harnessing and expending energy. How much energy would it take for a machine to make a sweater versus a human? Factor in the costs for generating fuel for both systems. I don’t know, but my guess would be that the human requires less energy for the task and has fewer direct environmental consequences. So, if the human were living off the grid, eating a locally-grown vegetarian diet, in a temperate climate, requiring little temperature management and so on (admittedly, a best case scenario), could it not potentially be better for the environment?

Furthermore, one of the greatest direct consequences of mass production is over production. Even if machines were more efficient, power-wise, at creating the aforementioned sweater, that advantage is likely lost by all of the sweaters that go unpurchased. If a person making handmade goods finds that his sweaters aren’t selling, he’s likely to stop knitting them after he has a few too many to go around. Sure, no self-respecting capitalist goes into any venture looking to hurt his margins via over production, but it happens all the time. If people do not buy the goods, they often end up in landfills. Financially, it’s better be able to manufacture too many than to fall short of demand, as Nintendo is currently experiencing.

Further still, one likely wouldn’t have a sweater factory in every town, as the infrastructure costs become cost prohibitive. But if one buys handmade items locally, the fuel savings from transport must also be factored in as an advantage.

Jeff

There are plenty of valid reasons to buy hand-made without making false connections to global heating. Similarly, there are plenty of valid reasons to deal with global heating on its own, without resorting to tugging fake heartstrings over hand-made products.