dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Example #22) (04/26/84)
Let's Talk About Conservation__________________________________________________
The subject of conservation as an energy "source" has been brought up.
I think this subject merits its own discussion rather than remain as an off-
shoot of the nuclear power discussion.
Why is it that conservation is not taken seriously? I, of course, have
my own opinion. We live in a patriarchical culture, one where the "masculine"
ideal is more valued than the "feminine" ideal. This culture's particular
"masculine" ideal involves an *active* stance towards problem solving and a
*linear* method of attacking problems.
Conservation, on the other hand, is a *cooperative* element of a *hol-
istic* approach to the problem.
Any thoughts? I hope so.
<_Jym_>
| Jym Dyer | Nashua, NH | ...{allegra,decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer |csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (04/27/84)
,,,,
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 Hughested@usceast.UUCP (System Programmer) (04/27/84)
<let's turn the thermostat down another 10 degrees> 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! (Actually I think conservation is taken too seriously by many people) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Nolan usceast!ted 6536 Brookside Circle Columbia, SC 29206 (feather the rast!) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jonw@azure.UUCP@cvl.UUCP (jonw@azure.UUCP) (05/03/84)
<>>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