Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
staunchly opposed. 12 Too much conservation, they warned, would sad-
dle Americans with ugly, dangerous vehicles, make U.S. manufacturers
uncompetitive, and put legions of people out of jobs. One Ford execu-
tive explained to Congress that new standards would “result in a Ford
product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto-sized vehicles or some
mix of vehicles ranging from sub-sub-compact to perhaps a Maverick,”
another pint-sized Ford of ering. 13 Yet proponents of new standards
prevailed. Passed by Congress in 1975, the new rules demanded that
new vehicles double their ei ciency over the following decade. Together
with rising prices for gasoline, these new standards would cause U.S.
gasoline consumption to fall beginning in 1978. h is trend would even-
tually reverse, but it would take until 1993 for U.S. gasoline use to reach
its previous peak again.
Amid these tactical developments, a more fundamental i ght over the
future of American energy emerged. It began among experts and oi -
cials. “h e contention,” wrote Allen Hammond in the New York Times ,
“is not just over specii c elements of technology. h e two sides dif er
over whether energy salvation lies in conservation or expanded produc-
tion; in renewable or depletable energy resources; and in small-scale,
decentralized energy sources or in large, centralized systems. 14
h e apparent tension was crystallized in a 1976 essay that, as the
Atlantic Monthly later observed, would “become something of a focal
point for the debate over national energy plans.” 15 Its author was Amory
Lovins, then a twenty-nine-year-old staf er at the environmental group
Friends of the Earth, and his article, published in the journal Foreign
Af airs , was titled “Energy Strategy: h e Road Not Taken?” 16 Lovins
laid out two options. h e “hard energy path,” on which he argued that
the United States was embarking, featured ever-rising energy consump-
tion, drawn particularly from coal and nuclear power, along with no
meaningful role for alternative fuels. h e “sot energy path,” in contrast,
would see U.S. energy consumption deliberately peak and then decline,
with “sot technologies”—solar power, biofuels, wind energy, and the
like—delivering an increasing share of the remaining needs. h e result,
he argued, would be benei ts to the U.S. economy, national security,
and the environment; the opposite course would risk disaster on all
fronts.
 
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search