Basic HTML Version
THE ENERGYCRISIS: FACING UP TO
by
George Ritter
While most people endorse the virtues ofenergy conservation, few seem willing to do anything about it.
lt 's always the "other guy" who needs to save energy. As this article wi/1 show, too many people in our
society have too big a vested interest in energy waste to want to give it up.
nergy!" "Conservation !" "Diminishing re–
sources!"
"Hogwash! Those aren't the real problems.
What we really need is a good healthy dose of
increased productivity and profits."
"AII this talk about zero growth smacks of economic
heresy. lt's tantamount to saying depression!"
"The way to put out a fire is with more fire. Never
mind that the water in the fire hose is down toa trickle."
Absurd, preposterous, you say. No one could ration–
ally hold such positions.
Nobody tha t is except: 1) many corporate executives;
2) numerous labor leaders; 3) countless legislators and
officials in federal, state and local government.
If you think this assessment is too harsh, consider the
actions of sorne of America's enl ightened leaders-both
public and private-since the Arab oi l embargo in 1973.
Detroit, Michigan, 1974-1975:
United Auto Workers'
leader Leonard Woodcock calls for restrictions on im–
ported cars.
Massachusel/s Jnstitute of Technology, 1975:
Research
scientists charge Ford and Exxon corporations wi th de–
liberately withdrawing funds from methanol research.
Methanol added to gasoline has been conclusively
shown to reduce automotive fue! consumption.
Fortune
magazine reports that most oil companies "greet the
idea icily, warning of new marketing complications and
other problems." Yet a methanol-gasoline mixture is
presently being used by sorne drivers who al ready seem
to have surmounted these "problems."
20
Washing10n, D.C., 1975:
Congress considers imposing
an energy tax on large cars in order to encourage fue!
conservation. The chairman of General Motors notifies
the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Com–
mittee that such a measure would cause workers in the
automobile industry "intense hardship." The measure is
quickly dropped.
Washington, D. C., 1975:
President Ford propases di–
verting a major portion of the $6.5 billion annual hígh–
way trust fund for development of rapid transit systems.
lmmediate opposition is voiced by the Híghway User's
Federation, a Washington lobby wi th a $3.3 mi ll ion
annual budget. Heavy monetary contributors to the Fed–
eration include Exxon, U.S. Steel, General Motors, and
Allstate Insurance.
Pumplng for More Productlon
[Q]
verconsumptive energy habits, as the exam–
ples above illustra te, are deeply ingrained in
America's national psyche.And the ra tionale
used to support their perpetuation often
borders on the absurd. For instance, here's
how one prominent California legislator defended an
expanded highwayconstruction program- not in 1957, but
.t
in 1977: " ... Since 97 percent of all the goods in transi t in
~
California usestreetsor highways," hewrote,
"it
isessential
~
tha t the bulkofany revenue from an increase in the gas tax
~
go to road construction. California's existing highway
~
networkmust becompleted and maintained a t a leve! that is :
both efficient and safe."
~
The
PLAIN TRUTH April 1978