Second Article
It is not in the American experience to think about limits on energy. . . . Yet by the late 1960s and early 1970s, limits on the energy base in [the United States] began to surface. . . . Environmentalism made its influence felt in a large number of ways: in such legislation as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act; in the establishment of environmental impact statements; in the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency; and in the development of the significant new industry of pollution control.
As far as energy was concerned, environmentalism had its major [effect] on the burning of coal. Concern about air pollution led to fuel switching, especially by electric utilities, away from domestically produced coal to low-sulfur oil, which had to be imported. Although not particularly noticeable at the time, this change led to a significant increase in the demand for oil. Between 1968 and 1973, oil consumption by electric utilities more than tripled. Another limitation on [the U.S.] energy base was [that the] U.S. was an aging producer. It was outrunning its geological base. But this highly relevant fact was not represented in either the consumption pattern or in prices. . . . The turning point came in 1970, when U.S. oil production reached its peak and then began to decline. . . .
In terms of solving the supply side of the energy equation, the choices most talked about can be classified into two categories: hard versus soft energy paths. . . . The usual proposed hard-path solution is the rapid expansion of three sectors: coal (mainly strip-mined, then made into electricity and synthetic fluid fuels); oil and gas (increasingly from Arctic and offshore wells); and nuclear fission (eventually in fast-breeder reactors). Soft technologies, on the other hand, use to the greatest possible extent nondepletable resources like sun, wind, and vegetation. They emphasize diversification and dispersal of energy sources so as to avoid in the future the sort of dependence we now have on fossil fuels. . . .
An increasing number of individuals and communities in the U.S. are shifting to the soft path. . . . A more rapid spread of this approach is being hindered by government (taxpayer) subsidies of the hard-path approach, outdated building codes that discourage energy conservation and sometimes require unnecessary backup [by] conventional heating systems, inadequate access to capital for development of solar energy resources, and the false belief that it will be a long time before solar energy can provide a significant fraction of primary energy. In 1984, for example, about 18% of all primary energy used in the world and 8.5% of that used in the U.S. came from renewable solar energy resources. . . .
Diversification into solar energy is a primary reason for the dramatic acquisition of copper mines by oil companies. Each solar collector for heating and cooling systems requires about a pound of copper, and oil companies now control almost 60% of domestic copper production in the U.S. . . . Until recently, energy and high technology companies disparaged solar energy. . . . Worried that every rooftop could become its own power plant and sensing that the cry for solar energy was a revolt against huge companies, utilities, and staggering electric bills, large corporations spent a share of their public relations budget playing down the solar “messiahs.” At the same time, they began buying up solar technology companies.
Material used in this test passage has been adapted from the following source:
L. G. Brewster, The Public Agenda: Issues in American Politics. ©1987 by St. Martin’s Press.
As far as energy was concerned, environmentalism had its major [effect] on the burning of coal. Concern about air pollution led to fuel switching, especially by electric utilities, away from domestically produced coal to low-sulfur oil, which had to be imported. Although not particularly noticeable at the time, this change led to a significant increase in the demand for oil. Between 1968 and 1973, oil consumption by electric utilities more than tripled. Another limitation on [the U.S.] energy base was [that the] U.S. was an aging producer. It was outrunning its geological base. But this highly relevant fact was not represented in either the consumption pattern or in prices. . . . The turning point came in 1970, when U.S. oil production reached its peak and then began to decline. . . .
In terms of solving the supply side of the energy equation, the choices most talked about can be classified into two categories: hard versus soft energy paths. . . . The usual proposed hard-path solution is the rapid expansion of three sectors: coal (mainly strip-mined, then made into electricity and synthetic fluid fuels); oil and gas (increasingly from Arctic and offshore wells); and nuclear fission (eventually in fast-breeder reactors). Soft technologies, on the other hand, use to the greatest possible extent nondepletable resources like sun, wind, and vegetation. They emphasize diversification and dispersal of energy sources so as to avoid in the future the sort of dependence we now have on fossil fuels. . . .
An increasing number of individuals and communities in the U.S. are shifting to the soft path. . . . A more rapid spread of this approach is being hindered by government (taxpayer) subsidies of the hard-path approach, outdated building codes that discourage energy conservation and sometimes require unnecessary backup [by] conventional heating systems, inadequate access to capital for development of solar energy resources, and the false belief that it will be a long time before solar energy can provide a significant fraction of primary energy. In 1984, for example, about 18% of all primary energy used in the world and 8.5% of that used in the U.S. came from renewable solar energy resources. . . .
Diversification into solar energy is a primary reason for the dramatic acquisition of copper mines by oil companies. Each solar collector for heating and cooling systems requires about a pound of copper, and oil companies now control almost 60% of domestic copper production in the U.S. . . . Until recently, energy and high technology companies disparaged solar energy. . . . Worried that every rooftop could become its own power plant and sensing that the cry for solar energy was a revolt against huge companies, utilities, and staggering electric bills, large corporations spent a share of their public relations budget playing down the solar “messiahs.” At the same time, they began buying up solar technology companies.
Material used in this test passage has been adapted from the following source:
L. G. Brewster, The Public Agenda: Issues in American Politics. ©1987 by St. Martin’s Press.