Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm
From: mwm@ea.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: A reply to T.C. Wheeler--the case fo - (nf)
Message-ID: <10100043@ea.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Apr-84 03:34:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ea.10100043
Posted: Sat Apr 28 03:34:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 3-May-84 20:05:01 EDT
References: <2718@azure.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:azure:-271800:ea:10100043:000:859
Nf-From: ea!mwm    Apr 28 12:34:00 1984

#R:azure:-271800:ea:10100043:000:859
ea!mwm    Apr 28 12:34:00 1984

/***** ea:net.politics / azure!jonw /  7:28 am  Apr 25, 1984 */
Since T.C. never even mentioned conservation in his article, I am left with the
impression that he (and probably most other folks) don't really consider 
conservation an energy source.  Not only is it an energy source, but it has the
potential to make a larger contribution than any single form of energy that 
exists today and to make that contribution in much less time than it takes to
build new nuclear plants or even coal-fired plants.  

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
/* ---------- */

Conservation is a lot like taxation: a little bit can be good for you, but
it quite easily gets out of hand. We've already made the mistake of basing
a large part of our national economy on one; I'm scared of what could happen
if we got the other one into the act.

	<mike