Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Let's Talk About Conservation!
Message-ID: <7606@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Apr-84 06:23:09 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.7606
Posted: Fri Apr 27 06:23:09 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Apr-84 07:53:41 EST
References: <7417@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 43

,,,,


    Come on Mr. Dyer, this speculation about "masculine" and "feminine"
ideals is pretty silly.  Even if your words communicated any ideas (they
don't, everyone has their own idea of what "masculine" and "feminine"
ideals are) such vague metaphors are unlikely to shed much light on the
problem, and certainly not suggest solutions.
   People in North America consume a great deal of resources.  This cannot
be argued.  The morality of this can be questioned but probably to little
practical effect.  Experience seems to indicate that people will continue
to consume resources until they become too expensive, or until prevented
by government action (i.e. hunting laws).  Thus, if we wish to have a
significant amount of energy  by conservation the alternatives appeat to
be, 1) raise the cost of energy to the point where people will conserve it;
2) legislate limits on energy use.  (note the two can be combined, i.e.
legislation setting progressive energy rates, you pay one rate for the first
x joules, a higher rate for the next y joules and so forth.)
   At the moment energy costs are somewhere near the idealized "market value".
That is, the value set by supply and demand.  (Exaclty how near is a topic
that could keep this net running for 3 months, generating 100 flames including
42 character assasinations.)   In some sectors (notably consumer use of
gasoline) this has caused significant decrease in demand.  However, to reach
the levels of conservation, I believe Mr. Dyer is considering, energy costs
would have to increase significantly (perhaps double or more for electricity).
Such increases would necessitate almost unprecedented government interference
in the marketplace.  This along with many undesirable economic effets leads
me to discard this alternative.
   Legislation taking other forms than price regulation may be considered.
The most straightforward would be regulation of energy use.  I consider
this a admisistative nightmare, impossible to implement in any reasonable
form.
   More practical legislation is already in effect (at least in Canada).
This takes the form of tax relief and grants on energy saving measures (e.g.
home insulation) and the banning of certain energy inefficient products (e.g.
frost free refrigerators).  I am very much in favour of such programs and
wish they would be extended.  A good start would be the banning of large
automobiles (or at least the imposition of a heavy surtax on them).
   It may be that conservation of the degree Mr. Dyer advocates may be
impossible given the present stucture of our society.  If Mr. Dyer advocates
changing this structure I would be interested to here his views on how
this might be done.
                                      William Hughes