Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!jonw@azure.UUCP
From: jonw@azure.UUCP@cvl.UUCP (jonw@azure.UUCP)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Let's Talk About Conservation!
Message-ID: <956@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-May-84 13:19:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.956
Posted: Thu May  3 13:19:59 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 4-May-84 05:22:56 EDT
Sender: cas@cvl.UUCP
Organization: U. of Md. Computer Vision Lab
Lines: 39

<>>Possibly the reason conservation is not taken seriously is that
  >it is just a stopgap.  No matter how much fossil fuels we conserve,
  >we are still going to run out. I for one see no reason to lower my standard
  >of living (houses cold in winter, buildings hot in summer etc) if all it
  >does is leave a problem for my great grandchildren rather than my grand
  >children. Let's face the problems now!

I'm afraid that this is probably a fairly typical attitude among most
Americans--an attitude that acts as a barrier to our greatest potential energy
resource.  Conservation is NOT "just a stopgap" in the sense that nuclear and
fossils are.  Conservation can and will be used long after we have abandoned
our current dangerous and polluting energy technologies.  Conservation does
not mean doing without; it means doing the same sorts of things only better,
smarter, and more efficiently.  (As a quick illustration of this, it takes 95%
less energy to recycle aluminum than to produce aluminum from ore.  A
nationwide ban on non-returnable containers similar to the successful Oregon
program could save 225 trillion BTU's per year, enough energy to meet the
annual electricity needs of both Chicago and New York.) 

Because conservation by its very nature is highly fragmented, there are almost
no organized, large-scale vested interests around to actively lobby for it.
(Insulation manufacturers could be an exception.)  Because of this all-important
factor, it has been up to environmental and consumer organizations to promote
conservation as the cornerstone of a rational energy policy.  

(It is indeed fortunate that a few of the largest companies in America do not 
share the utility's and general public's negative attitude toward conservation.
I have already posted an overview of the incredible progress that has been made
by companies such as IBM and Dow Chemical, who now realize that wasting energy 
is like flushing money down the toilet.)

Let's face the problems now.  Let's stop spending the billions of dollars we are
squandering on nuclear research and subsidy, and divert that money into 
soft-path energy.  Let's get behind a comprehensive, national conservation 
effort to carry us into the next century--a time when we could rely totally on 
soft-path energy.

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