COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.REQUIRE "TWOCOL.PUB" SOURCE_FILE
C00010 00003	.cb New Technology
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
.REQUIRE "TWOCOL.PUB" SOURCE_FILE;

.FONT 4 "NGR25"
.macro bq ⊂ Preface 0; BEGIN INDENT 2,2,2; SELECT 4 ⊃

.SELECT 3; turn on "%" nofill
A less Flippant Response to
John McCarthy's "Energy and
the Environment" letter.

.center
by Les Earnest
.fac; select 1
McCarthy asks, "Who is right, Nixon or Quarles?"
The easy answer is "both":  there is no inconsistency
in the dual measures of developing more energy sources
and imposing discipline over our patterns of personal
consumption.

Like McCarthy, I believe that in the long run it will
be possible and desirable to develop energy resources
that greatly exceed those now available.  I am more
worried about the short term than he apparently is.

I find current local levels of air pollution objectionable.
Looking out over the bay, I have seen the smog layers
get progressively thicker and darker during the 8 years
I have been here.  I lived in the L. A. area long
enough to learn what it can do to your eyes and lungs when it gets really bad.
I do not believe that prescribed modifications to automobile
engines have solved this problem, nor will they any time soon.

Instead of asking "Who is right", I believe that it makes
more sense to ask "Which set of measures needs pushing?"
There is a lot of push behind energy development because
there is much money to be made there.  While environmentalists
have managed to indulge in a few excesses, their impact has
been miniscule and their offenses minor compared with the
well-developed oil lobby that has brought about the (legal)
systematic looting of public funds through oil depletion
allowances, tax deductions for foreign "taxes" on oil, etc.
It is certainly not plausible to lay any significant part
of the blame for current energy shortages on the environmental
protection movement.

Nixon is quoted as saying that "The capacity for self-sufficiency
in energy is a great goal, and an essential goal.  We are going
to achieve it."  It is not clear to me that this is a worthwhile
goal, let alone a "great" or "essential" one.  Of course, such
a goal %2is%1 important if we wish to be able to dominate the
rest of the world.

The accompanying figure [taken from "Energy Policy in the U. S."
by David J. Rose, %2Scientific American%1, January 1974]  illustrates
the difficulty of achieving independence anytime soon.  It appears
that Nixon's assertions in this area are every bit as plausible
as his earlier claims for keeping inflation under control and
achieving "peace with honor".

McCarthy's last paragraph summarizes his curious reasoning:  
.BQ
"It seems to me that the environmentalists have exaggerated environmental
dangers and the difficulty of getting more energy because they
would like us to live differently for quite different and unstated
reasons."
.END
That may be true of a few people on whom you could stick that label,
but it is entirely too sweeping an accusation.
.skip
Continuing with McCarthy,
.bq
"This tactic has been successful in getting rigid environmental laws
passed, and has succeeded in stalling many measures for getting more
energy.  But, as the congressional vote on the Alaska pipeline showed,
environmentalists cannot get us to change our life-styles without
really convincing us that the changes are desirable or necessary."
.end
Overlooking the fallacies in the first statement, I still must ask,
"What does a congressional vote on a commercial adventure in Alaska
have to do with our lifestyle?"  There is no practical way to market
Alaskan oil on the oil-short East Coast, nor is any pipeline that
would make this feasible contemplated.  The West Coast needs only
modest supplements to local sources for quite some time.  Where is
the Alaskan oil to be marketed, then?  Mostly Japan.  The closest
this is likely to come to enhancing our lifestyles is that it may
increase the availability of Sony television sets.
.preface 1

I have no objection to sending oil to Japan.  I only wish that it
was being done in one of the several possible ways that do not
include raping the environment.  Of course, that would reduce
profits, which is unacceptable.

McCarthy's concluding remark is that
.bq
"Unless this happens, we'll stick with Nixon"
.end
Presumably that is an editorial "we".
.preface 1;
.cb New Technology

In addition to seeking new energy sources, why
not also seek more efficient ways of using energy?

I believe that advanced communications and computer
systems can reduce the need for travel to theaters,
stores, or even a separate place of work.

I believe in the development of efficient but low-performance
vehicles for local transportation that
can also "piggy back" on a rapid transit system for longer rides
(e.g. a flatcar system with rapid loading arrangements).

.cb Old Technology

In the nearer term, like McCarthy, I like cars.  But I also like
clean air and bicycles and believe that our values have become
warped.

Automobiles have exclusive access to smooth, flat, expensive expressways and freeways
and have many parking lots to accomodate them.  Bicycles are
permitted to compete with cars for the twisted, hilly, pot-holed
roads, and if the rider is lucky, there may be a tree or something to
chain to when he gets where he is going.

Last summer I bicycled from here to San Diego and several times
had the choice of riding illegally on a freeway or carrying the
bicycle cross-country for miles, there being no road open to bicycles.
(Happily, they didn't catch me.)

While bicycles will not, by themselves, solve the air pollution and
energy shortage problems,
they can make a substantially larger contribution to urban
transportation than they do here at present.
Whether out of necessity or cleverness, many European cities make
travel by bicycle downright convenient.
There is, of course, the beneficial side effect of blubber reduction.

With relatively modest investments (but some reduction in automobile
roadways), we can have
bicycle routes separated from motor vehicles, plus secure parking facilities.
(I do not have in mind the miserable system stuck together by Palo Alto.)

For just a bit more, we could implement a "free bicycle" program.
That is, there would be a large number of cheap bicycles purchased,
painted distinctively, and parked in designated locations throughout
the urban area.  They would be freely available for anyone to ride.

These bicycles would be maintained and redistributed as needed by a roving
staff, probably composed of high school students working part time.

.turn off "%"
I have not carefully examined the cost of such a program, but would
guess that it could be implemented throughout the bay area for an
annual cost below 10% of what is paid for automobiles.  The appropriate
charging mechanism would be a local "transportation tax", probably
hung on property.

The benefits of a free bicycle system would, I believe, far outweigh
the cost.