[The following is excerpted from an extended essay Paul Tsongas wrote in late
 1990, before deciding to run for President on the Democratic
 ticket.  It was subsequently reprinted as a campaign book, 
 and is being distributed on computer bulletin boards.  For more
 information, contact Tsongas for President, 2 Oliver Street, 
 Boston, MA, 02109,  voice phone 617-422-0100.]



                                       Paul E. Tsongas
                                       Foley, Hoag & Eliot
                                       One Post Office Square
                                       Boston, MA  02109
                                       (617) 482-1390




III.  The Environment - Equilibrium With Earth

     There has always been an environmental constituency.  Unlike
many interest groups its objective has historically not been its
own economic well-being.  Its goal has been the preservation of
nature, a sense of being at one with the land and water and air
and all the creatures which co-inhabit this planet.

     That core environmental constituency has been a political
bedrock, hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions of people,
feeling very strongly about the legitimacy of their cause.

     What is different about this issue in the modern day is the
newly recruited battalions to the environmentalist army and the
breadth of their concerns.  The historic group (begun in large
part by moderate Republicans) is sometimes dismissed as
"tree-huggers."  (It is ironic that someone's love of a tree
could be viewed as a negative characteristic.)  The modern
coalition, however, involves people whose interests are much
closer to home.  It involves citizens who have been affected by
toxic dump sites or air pollution or have come to fear the
quality of the water they drink.  These newly minted
conservationists are going to be no less committed to the cause
of environmental protection.  Indeed, in many respects they bring
a kind of passion that has been sometimes absent.  A despoiled
earth will not be tolerated by human beings dependent upon a
clean earth for survival.

     Now there is a third group in this coalition.

     This group is largely a time-of-being phenomenon.  It is the
post-Cold War generation.  If one sees generations in terms of
time frames and definitive events, the progression in recent
times arguably would be Depression/World War II, Cold War, and
Vietnam/Civil Rights/Nuclear War.

     When the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the spectre of
East-West nuclear confrontation was rendered highly improbable. 
The young people now coming of age know, and will only know, the
return of democracy to Eastern Europe and the centrifugal forces
at play in a weakened Soviet Union.

     An era has passed and with it much of the fear of a
superpower caused nuclear winter.

     As this generation analyzes the world in which it will
mature and live out its years, it does not perceive a world of
calm and quietude.  It perceives other dislocations.  And one of
the most severe stems from the mindless abuse of our planet by
generations focused on other issues.  This new generation sees a
world of possible climatic cataclysm, of a world buried in its
own excessive trash, a world where the air they will breath will
threaten the health of themselves and of the children they are
beginning to bear.  They see virgin forests of antiquity falling
to greed.  And they see population growth which threatens to turn
the future of mankind into an endless series of bloody clashes
over ever-limited resources.

     Simply put, they sense global disequilibrium.  The earth is
not at peace with its inhabitants.  We are consuming resources at
a rate which is not generationably sustainable.  We see
population growth rendering third world cities dysfunctional.  We
are despoiling this mother spaceship and will eventually render
it hostile to human well-being.

     Our young think differently than we do.  As we get older the
time frame we think in shrinks because our remaining time on
earth has lessened.

     Not so the young.  With their sense of their own immortality
they can look out and see forever.  A planet in disequilibrium is
hazy to short-term focused adults.  It is alarmingly clear to our
offspring.  They know they will inherit the consequences.

     I learned this lesson soon after the Valdez oil spill in
Alaska.  I was driving through Chatham on Cape Cod and noticed
that I needed gasoline.  Without much thought I turned into the
nearest service station and pulled up next to the pumps.  There
came an immediate howl from my three children.  I had stopped at
an Exxon station.  They demanded that I drive away.

     My response to them was that this particular gas station
owner had no responsibility for the oil spill.  They rejected
that argument as irrelevant.  I was patronizing a despoiler of
the environment.  No more.  No less.  Their voices reached an
insistent crescendo of righteousness and I decided to drive off
to calm the din.

     The incident troubled me.  As the Senate co-author of the
Alaska Lands Act, I have always seen myself as an ardent and
committed environmentalist.  I always saw myself as the defender
of Alaska's wonders.  My children, however, were beyond me in
their sensitivity.  How different from what I thought about when
I was their age.  They had become dedicated environmental
activists and I had never noticed.

     We should welcome their alarm.  It calls us to a true
stewardship of our environment.  And such a stewardship is
uniquely American.  We are the continental nation.  Descendants
of Teddy Roosevelt and Ansel Adams.  We should see this calling
as returning home to what we are truly all about.

     Specifically what?

International Leadership

     It is appalling that we were the most notable footdraggers
at the recent international convention on global warming.  So
much for George Bush being the environmental President.  We must
lead the charge for global conservationism.  If not us, who?  If
not now, when?

     Washington has true champions of the environment in the
House and Senate and in the EPA.  Let the White House use its
influence to spread that commitment throughout the land and
across this globe.  Let the New American Mandate establish the
principle that love of earth is mainstream America, a reflection
of the best of us in all of us.

     The vehicle for doing this would be to proclaim the goal of
global equilibrium.  This means the pursuit of policies and
lifestyles that allow the consumption of resources to be
consistent with having an inhabitable planet over the
generations.

     The issues here are obvious.  Global warming and the
depletion of the ozone layer are the most noted but they are
merely the tip of the melting iceberg.  These two issues deserve
the highest level of attention and concern rather than the
jittery avoidance that has characterized the Reagan-Bush years. 
I chaired the first hearings on global warming as a Congressman
in June, 1977.  It was an issue that was obscure to some, but all
too relevant to those who testified.  In the absence of any White
House or media concern the matter remained dormant until the very
hot summer of 1988.  All of a sudden it was a topic of popular
discourse.  That is not how serious issues should be confronted. 
The White House needs to establish a national dialogue on the
scientific data.  Pretending that these matters are secondary is
risking the lives of millions of people should they ever  come to
pass.

A recycling ethic

     Ancient history is often marked by great events that took
place at large feasts or simple small repasts.  From the tales of
Homer in ancient Greece to the beginnings of the world's great
faiths, history was often made when people broke bread together.
     The archeologists of today are unable to find virtually any
artifacts from those events.

     But the archeologists in the year 2991 will be able to
unearth artifacts of millions upon millions of meals consumed in
1991.  They need only go to the local landfill and dig a bit. 
There they will discover the true artifact of our time - the
disposable, once used, plastic utensil.  In addition, they will
find all kinds of commodities specifically designed to be thrown
away rather than repaired when they are broken.

     The age of the disposable society must give way to the age
of recycling.

     Recycling must become as much an automatic personal habit as
brushing one's teeth.  Again, here, as in other issues referred
to previously, it is a matter of mindset.

     Such a mindset already exists.  But its existence is
inversely proportional to the age of the person.  The young do
not thoughtlessly dispose of aluminum cans into trash cans as do
many of their parents.  They want to collect them for recycling.
 
     There is great promise here.  As a member of the Recycling
Advisory Council, I am struck at how willing corporate America is
to move in this direction.  In many respects they are far ahead
of the politicians.  Much is happening.  Americans instinctively
want to be in harmony with their environment..  A clear call for
sustainable lifestyles will be received with great response.  Let
us sound that call.

     Such a call has to be backed up by government procurement
policies at the local, state and federal level that give real
preference to recycled products.  This will help to establish
markets that are now often fledgling and vulnerable.

     It means introducing a virgin materials fee.  This would
give recycled commodities only a slight economic competitive
advantage over virgin products, but it would set a tone as to the
need for manufacturers to rethink procurement practices.  The
proceeds from such a fee would be channeled to help with
recycling and disposal costs.

     It means setting up a commission to establish a consistent
standard for consumer guidance so that a "green" label or a
"recycling" label has specific meaning and consumers can express
their environmentalism with their pocketbooks.  There can be no
doubt that environmental consumerism is the nuclear weapon of
recycling.  It only needs specific guidelines in order to be
fully unleashed.  Once this happens, the market will respond
accordingly.  Only by having functioning markets for recycled
goods can we hope to achieve any worthwhile level of recycling.

     It means establishing product design standards to maximize
recyclability.

     It means policies that minimize waste materials in the
manufacturing processes of American companies.

     It means packaging standards that result in the least use of
throw-away materials and the greatest use of containers that are
earth friendly.

     The objective of all these policies should be to create a
mindset of avid consumer and governmental activism so that an
equilibrium lifestyle becomes a simple matter of every day habit
and behavior.

Global Warming

     The issues here are well known.  We need energy policies
which maximize the investment in conservation and renewables and
which minimize the burning of those fossil fuels which cause the
greatest emissions.  On the cutting edge here are the utilities. 
Federal and state regulatory policies should tie a utility's rate
of return to its commitment to energy conservation and the
encouragement of renewable energy sources.  The loss of a
utility's revenue base caused by using less fossil fuel based
energy should result in a net plus in the utility's rate of
return.  That rate of return should be above that which could be
achieved by the usual standards of proper financial and technical
management.  Utilities must be put in a position to maximize
their shareholders' value by aggressively and relentlessly
pursuing policies consistent with the need to reduce global
warming.

     We also need policies which maximize the planting of carbon
dioxide consuming trees both in America and worldwide and which
minimize the need to cut down existing trees anywhere.  There are
going to have to be serious discussions about how to save
tropical rain forests which are so vital to any effort to lessen
the buildup of carbon dioxide.  Telling countries not to demolish
their forests is as effective as their telling us to reduce our
energy consumption.  These countries will not adopt policies
which benefit mankind but go against their national economic self
interests.  The developed world has to be prepared to tip the
economic scales in exchange for the obvious benefits it will
receive.  This is an area where we can turn to the Japanese and
Germans and ask them to take the lead.  They had all sorts of
reasons for bypassing the Persian Gulf war.  We expended our
resources to safeguard their interests.  Here is an opportunity
for them to do the same for all of us in preserving the great
forests in the developing world.  A planet threatened by rising
oceans is in no less peril than one threatened by a Saddam
Hussein.  This is a brave new world and quite uncomfortable.  But
global warming isn't very comfortable either.

     Planting trees should be a national passion.  It should be a
normal and recurring event at schools, in city parks, at
factories, in backyards and front yards.  The President should
make this a standard ceremony when visiting various parts of the
country.  It would be a ceremony with real moral purpose - a
purpose instinctively understood by our young.

     The earlier section on recycling is applicable here since it
is the use of wood products to make paper which consumes an
enormous number of trees.  We must get to the point where the
paper we write on, the newspapers we read, and the circulars we
receive in the mail are all printed on recycled paper.

     One major obstacle here will be some in the press since the
commitment to environmentalism in the editorial department is
sometimes not matched by the vice-president of business
operations.  The latter will go on for hours on why today's high
speed newspaper printing process cannot use recycled paper due to
lessened fiber strength.

     Come on, fourth estate.  Let's see total leadership here.

Land Use

     Loss of woodlands, open space and farm land is the result of
investment dollars being used for development.  The implosion of
many of our urban centers is the result of an absence of
investment dollars being used for development.

     We deplore the loss of the natural landscape.

     We deplore the decline of our urban centers.

     Since neither has to occur, there must be a better way.

     Development dollars flow in very prescribed channels.  As a
partner in a development company, I know this all too well. 
Forming these channels are tax laws, zoning regulations,
investment incentives, and land use policies such as height
restrictions, green space requirements, and the like.  Government
sets the channels and the market place responds accordingly. 
Developers go where government tells them to go whether or not it
makes any sense.  The battle over development pits
conservationists against developers.  It should be
conservationists against government officials since the
developers are only building where and what the laws allow.

     The late 1980's saw this truth play itself out on Cape Cod. 
As chairman of a state environmental task force I had proposed
the idea of a moratorium on development on the Cape.  The notion
created a firestorm and I was vilified by developers and town
officials and state legislators.  They deemed the idea
irresponsible and stated their strong belief that it would die of
its own illogic.  No elected officials beyond a few isolated
selectmen came to my defense.  The Boston political establishment
was nowhere to be found.

     Then a funny thing happened.  The Boston Globe did a poll
and found that two-thirds of the Cape inhabitants supported the
concept and fully three-fourths endorsed the regional land use
planning proposal known as the Cape Cod Planning Commission. 
This revelation raised the political stakes considerably.

     When I scheduled a hearing at Cape Cod Community College, I
was picketed and heckled at by hundreds of developers and
construction workers.  In response, the Cape's conservationist
community began to organize in earnest and the battles lines were
drawn.  Charges and countercharges were the order of the day and
soon no one was safe from the controversy.

     The issues were placed on the ballot and we won handily.  In
a subsequent 1990 special election, the planning commission was
enacted into law despite a severe economic downturn that had seen
development come to a virtual halt.

     In the end, the developers saw me and the conservationists
as the enemy.  The conservationists, in turn, saw the developers
as the enemy.  I, however, did not blame the developers.  They
were only trying to make a living.  I blamed the elected town
officials who had determined the rules of the game.  They were
the ones who had allowed unconstrained development that was at
variance with the wishes of their constituents.  They could have
prevented the abuses by voting the appropriate safeguards.  They
chose not to.  As a result, the battle between developers and the
conservationist community was unavoidable.  It could have been
otherwise.  It should have been otherwise.

     It serves little purpose to constantly have these battles
over development issues.  The end result is often exhaustion,
bitterness and/or bankruptcy.  It would be far better to
establish land use guidelines that everyone understands and which
reflect a community's consensus.  That is what political
leadership is paid to do.

     The reason that all this means something has to do with two
values.  First, it is the preservation of the land that God gave
to us.  There is a spirituality to our surroundings.  Primitive
people understand this.  Modernized people often don't. 
Secondly, it is the retention of the unique character of all the
places which make up America.  It is who we are as contrasted to
who everyone else in the world is.

     The role of the Federal government here is primarily to
articulate the importance of these values and to adopt policies
that support its position.  These are essentially local and state
matters, but the feds should also look at their own approaches. 
It should do a systematic analysis of existing federal tax laws
(such as the various depletion allowances) to see if they are
incompatible with these values .  It should also reexamine the
adequacy of tax and funding policies which would direct
investment away from open space to our urban centers (such as
historic preservation tax credits, urban enterprise zones, UDAG
grants, etc.)

     It should further look for other opportunities to preserve
open space.  The scheduled closure of some of our military bases
that was announced recently would be such an opportunity.

     Finally, it should encourage mayors and governors and
legislatures and city councils to consider the issue more
pointedly.  Visits to places that have preserved land or retained
a sense of character should be high on the agenda of top
governmental officials, including the President and Vice
President.

     Again, as in previous sections, the above is not meant to be
exhaustive of policy initiatives but rather is suggestive of a
philosophy that would cause us to constantly think in terms of an
equilibrium with the earth.

Population Control

     Nothing would serve the cause of environmental equilibrium
as much as population control.  Nothing would insure
environmental  disequilibrium as much as the world's population
growing uncontrollably.  The same can be said relative to the
issues of energy use and world social order.

     The earth is simply not capable of accommodating endless
human expansion.  We are increasing at a rate of 93 million
people a year.  In 1830 there were one billion people.  In 1990
there are 5.3 billion.  Within the next decade we will increase
population equivalent to all the inhabitants of Africa and South
America combined.  Towns have become cities.  And cities have
become megalopolises.  It cannot continue.

     The dilemma is not food.  We can produce enough to feed the
world's current population.  People starve today because of
political instability and the failure of food distribution
systems.  The starvation in Ethiopia and the Sudan is made even
more tragic by the fact that it need not be.

     The real dilemma of unconstrained population growth is
three-fold.

     First, while food stuffs can be produced every year into
infinity, fossil fuel energy cannot.  The earth is energy
resource limited and those limits are very real.  (More on this
in the next section.)

     Secondly, the world's burgeoning population is streaming
into the major cities, particularly in the third world, and
rendering those cities virtually unworkable.  This is a formula
for great social and political upheaval in the wake of serious
degradation of even the most basic quality of life in those
cities.

     Thirdly, the growing consumption of, and demand for, natural
resources is virtually unsustainable.  There is just so much
clean air.  Just so much clean water.  Just so many available
landfills.  Just so many ways to dispose of hazardous wastes. 
The land and the oceans are receiving unspeakable volumes of
waste each and every day.  The earth was never meant to be a
giant waste disposal unit.  To pretend that it can is to threaten
human survival.

     None of this is new.  No one doubts the inevitable
consequences of unlimited population expansion.  So why don't we
take it seriously?

     The reason, very simply, is domestic politics.  The
Reagan-Bush years have been marked by open hostility to family
planning worldwide.  While the Democrats supported such efforts
as quietly as possible hoping no one would notice, the
Republicans saw it as a clear opportunity to placate domestic
political interest groups.

     The Reagan-Bush approach has bought marvelous political
self-benefit at the expense of future social dislocation.  And
they don't care one bit.

     We Democrats must care.  Our obligation lies beyond the
Roger Ailes perspective.  We will be judged in future years by
how  well and how forcefully we began the drive for a stable
world population.  In this regard the New American Mandate is a
moral imperative that is worldwide in its responsibility.


IV.  Energy, Fossil Fuels - Someday There Won't Be Any

     There are two basic realities about energy facing Americans. 
First, we have no national energy policy (presuming that
importing oil does not qualify as such a policy).  Sadly, it took
the war in the Persian Gulf to again make this obvious.  The
1980's decade of energy issue avoidance has hopefully come to an
end although the White House may be the last to acknowledge it. 
Second, our energy use is based almost exclusively upon the
consumption of finite energy resources (particularly oil) and
that is, by definition, unsustainable over the long term.   This
will eventually create ever-deepening crises of supply and cause
desperate and powerful nations to seek to acquire remaining oil
reserves by force.  All of this was foreseen long ago by energy
and military analysts.  Again, witness the Persian Gulf where the
world's dependence upon foreign oil reserves greatly raised the
stakes in the current confrontation.

     Put it another way.  The earth has provided  a finite amount
of fossil fuels for its inhabitants.  The number of inhabitants
rises every year increasing total energy use.  The per capita
consumption of these fossil fuels also increases as more and more
countries become industrialized and as more and more people enjoy
energy-intensive lifestyles.  This dilemma will not be solved by
asking developing countries to forego comforts which we take for
granted.

     Every year the total energy use is subtracted from what the
earth started out with.  Since supply is always heading downward
and use is always heading upward, sooner or later what the
nations need will not be available.  At first, prices that are
confiscatory beyond measure will mean that the rich will have
energy resources and the poor will not.  But even that inequity
will not be sustainable as each year drains more fossil fuels. 
Eventually even supply at any price will not be possible. 
Nations will continually go to war to survive.  Today that is
self-evident.

     To make matters worse, most of the earth's readily
obtainable oil reserves are in one of the most unstable areas of
the world politically.  Thus the prospect of war exists into the
future, long after Saddam Hussein has passed from the scene.

     The discussion of this issue reveals the limited capacity of
middle-aged decision makers to think in terms beyond their
expected lifespans.  When 55 year oil experts talk in glowing
terms about a 50 year supply of that resource, that means they
are confident of supply during their expected natural lives. 
That is reassuring.  It is, however, less reassuring to their 25
year old children who are not certain they will have died by the
age of 75.  It is obviously not at all reassuring to their five
year old grandchildren.

     Let's up the estimate to 100 years.  Nothing changes in
respect to our moral obligation not to visit certain calamity
upon future generations.  This is where the issue of purpose
comes into play.  This is where the New American Mandate comes
into play.

     If we are dealing with a finite resource; if we are
depleting that resource; and if we are not aggressively pursuing
policies to bring about energy use based on renewables; then we
are condemning a future generation to the unspeakable.  Which
generation?  Who knows?  The next one or the one after that or
the one after that?  The moral burden does not lift; our purpose
must be to assure the survival of those future generations.

     We need a national energy policy.

     Such a policy must view current use patterns as
unacceptable, particularly the return to overreliance upon
imported oil.

     It must view the long term goal as minimizing finite
resource use, again, especially oil.  The future must be based
upon energy resources that are sustainable.

     One mission is to get from here to there in as smooth a
transition as possible.  That will take decades, intense
investment, rethinking, and lifestyle modification.  The
alternative is to request that God replace all the oil and gas
that we've consumed.  That would certainly be a lot easier but in
case He chooses to let us resolve this matter by ourselves, an
energy policy will be required.

Yearly Supply-Demand Report

     The reasons the country doesn't have an energy policy are
complex.  But one reason stems from the fact that the general
public has little idea how much oil, gas and coal reserves we
have in this country.  There are experts who know - or think they
know - but the average person is just never brought into the
discussion.

     There should be an annual Supply-Demand Report detailing the
best estimates of oil, gas and coal reserves.  Such data
collection is already being done.  But it is buried.  This report
should be the subject of focused presidential attention and
annual Congressional hearings.

     The purpose here is simple.  If there are actions required
to be taken in order to secure our energy future, they will only
be accepted if the people of this nation know the true facts. 
During the 1980's we reverted back to extreme foreign oil
dependence but it was done silently.  Few people in the Congress
or on Main Street were aware that oil imports in 1990 averaged
42%, their highest level since 1979 and up from 35% in 1973.  Oil
from the Persian Gulf accounted for 24% of all U.S. oil imports
in 1989, up from 17% in 1987.  The Reagan-Bush administrations
saw no need to make reference to or bring these facts forcefully
to the attention of the public.  Avoidance politics prevailed
once more.

     Then, all of a sudden, we are at war in the Persian Gulf and
oil is a critical cause of our involvement.  The yearly debate
over the Supply-Demand Report would educate both government
officials and the general public if it were given due notice when
it is released.

Maximize Conservation

     This one is self-evident.  Every barrel of oil not consumed
is a barrel of oil preserved for future generations.  Every MCF
of gas not burned, every ton of coal - all are stored in loving
deference to our descendants.  This is the New American Mandate
extended to those future Americans whose viability is in our
hands.  Conservation has become more mainstream, largely free
from the early notions that it was somewhat "soft."  In those
days real tough men produced energy.  Conservation was the domain
of the timid little old tree hugger ladies and unwashed hippies. 
Today it is the domain of corporate CEO's who see the savings to
their bottom lines.

     Mainstream, however, is not enough.  It must become the
number one energy priority.  This means a return to the debates
of yesteryear - efficiency standards, tax credits.  It also means
higher rates of return for utilities that maximize their
commitment to conservation and load management and a lesser rate
of return for utilities that don't.  Such a rate differential
should be significant enough to thoroughly incentivize utility
CEO's.  These companies are our most effective energy army and
they are already deployed.  Using them is far preferable to
devising new untested approaches using public employees.

     And it can be done.  When I became a director of Boston
Edison in 1985 I was a committed conservationist coming into a
company that was known to be hostile to any of the so-called
demand side management options.

     The outside environmental community - and the state
Department of Public Utilities - had harshly criticized Boston
Edison for its attitude.  I shared much of their perspective and
struggled inside the board to bring about change.  This effort
led to much company turmoil and in the end to serious management
changes.

     Boston Edison is now a recognized leader in demand side
management.  But the lesson here is not the obvious one.  Yes,
there was inertia.  Yes, there was resentment against policies
advocated by people who were always critical anyway.  But I
believe the major resistance was pure market place.  The
regulators and environmentalists were calling upon Edison to
pursue policies that were at variance with the cherished
principles of market share retention and resultant shareholder
value.  They were being asked to use their resources to shrink
their revenue base.  It was totally counter intuitive for people
who had spent their careers concerned about profitability.

     This fierce resistance can instantly become fierce support
if regulators just change the rules.  To truly maximize
conservation we must make it in the economic self-interest of
utilities to become devoted conservationists.

     Conservation also means higher gasoline prices.  As usual,
George Bush blanches when asked to do this by his energy policy
advisers.  His recently announced energy policy is warmed over
Reagan with production taking center stage and conservation
belittled.  It is a sad lesson of American politics that a
President would send troops to defend oil rich nations but not be
willing to take the tough political steps necessary to reduce
domestic oil demand.  I understand the politics.  It's just the
ethics that I can't fathom.  Washington should have a predictable
policy of raising the Federal excise tax on gasoline.  It should
be raised a certain amount each year, every year, so that
consumers can make sensible decisions about the cars they will
drive before the annual increases go into effect.  Three to five
cents a year each year would be one possibility.  Nothing, but
nothing, promotes the purchase of fuel efficient cars like
anticipated higher gas prices.  That is an unavoidable fact of
life.  It has been years since automobile ads spoke of fuel
efficiency.  All of today's ads speak of acceleration and power
and mightiness.  While this measure will not be well-received, a
three to five cents a year annual increase would not begin to
reach today's tax levels in virtually all other Western nations. 
Japan, Germany and Italy, for example, have gas prices exceeding
$3 a gallon.  They have faced the issue.  We have only just
begun.  The loss of American lives in the Persian Gulf is an
unacceptable price to pay for the once-understandable desire to
keep gas prices low.  Our need to lessen oil import dependence
should no longer be a national objective supported by lofty
rhetoric but devoid of the meaningful actions needed to
accomplish that objective.

     It also means higher federal taxes on fuel inefficient
automobiles that are then rebated, dollar for dollar, to
purchasers of fuel efficient automobiles.  The consumer buying a
car consistent with our national energy policy should be
subsidized by the consumer buying a car at variance with that
policy.

     Finally, it means greater investments in mass transit and
the rail system.  These would be funded by the gas tax.  Again,
those who use energy efficient means should be rewarded for such
use.  It is astonishing to think that we are still debating how
much should be allocated to mass transit as opposed to new
highways.  This debate can only happen in an atmosphere wherein
no national energy policy exists.

     These measures must be matched by all-out efforts to achieve
conservation internationally.  The electricity and transportation
systems are particularly inefficient in many third world
countries.  The United Nations must put this effort at the top of
their energy funding agenda.  We must cause this to happen.

Maximize Renewables

     This is the future.  Solar, wind, hydro, etc.  We were on
the road to making these technologies viable when the Reagan
administration blew away the funding for them.  There is an
enormous amount of research and development necessary before some
of these technologies become truly affordable and operational. 
But in terms of long-term national security interest, the Gulf
crisis should make it clear that energy dependence is no bargain. 
Better to spend billions to make those technologies viable than
to spend many more billions funding the consequences of energy
dependence.

     Here again the utilities are prime-time players.  Utilities
that aggressively promote these technologies should enjoy a
higher rate of return than those that don't.

     Finally, it should be noted that every dollar spent on
renewables (and conservation) remains in the economy and
multiplies.  To the extent that American-based solutions exist,
they should be preferred over imported solutions in pursuit of
the simple goal of keeping U.S. dollars at home.  Thus, a dollar
paid to an installer of insulation or invested in a wind energy
project stays here and circulates.  The benefit of that over
sending a dollar overseas to purchase oil is not insignificant.

Research into Nuclear Options

     This one is not self-evident.  But it is necessary
nonetheless.  Let's say we maximize conservation and renewables
tomorrow.  Let's also agree that by doing so we have stretched
out the fossil fuel reserves by twenty, fifty, even one hundred
years.  There's still a very real problem.  We will never arrive
at a time of energy use based solely on renewables.

     There must be a major base load energy capability that is
sustainable.  Inevitably that capability has to be nuclear.  The
fact that this is an unhappy reality does not make it any less of
a reality.  The other base-load alternative is massive reliance
on coal, and that is not possible in an era of real concern over
global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

     Every nuclear power plant operating in the world today
represents millions of barrels of oil not consumed.  Indeed, one
can, ironically, argue that we have served our descendants by the
use of nuclear power since they will inherit the oil we did not
use.  Each plant also represents tens of millions of dollars not
sent to OPEC but kept in the American economy.  This call for
nuclear power, of course, goes against every instinct of most
environmentalists.  It also offends those concerned with the
issue of nuclear safety and the attendant issue of the disposal
of nuclear waste.  These concerns are very real and will never
disappear.

     When I was struggling with the issue of nuclear power as a
Congressman and Senator in the 1970's, there was furious debate
among my staff members and outside advisors.  The split saw my
strong environmental supporters aligned with my political
advisors.  The argument was clear.  Environmentalists were
fiercely anti-nuclear.  They were my most dedicated loyalists. 
And they had valid concerns that were always being casually
dismissed by utilities and governments alike.  Being anti-nuclear
would be substantively correct and politically beneficial.

     On the other side was my energy staff person.  He was not
unsympathetic to the logic arrayed against him.  He thought the
nuclear industry and the utilities had been mindless, stubborn
and reactionary.  He thought that they had become their own worst
enemy for good reason.

     But, he asked, if you eliminate nuclear what do you put in
its stead?  What exactly is the replacement process for shutting
down the nuclear option?  Tell me specifically what substitutes
for what.
     At first we provided the expected response about
conservation and renewables.  But when you tried to put numbers
on them, there was a huge gap no matter how aggressively we
pushed these options.

     That left oil, gas and coal.  All were finite and oil and
coal had particular problems if you overloaded the system with
them.  While gas would be a clean energy source it would not
substitute for everything else.

     In the end, there were no open doors left.

     Accepting this was excruciating.  Politically it was all
downside.  It remains the most difficult and uncomfortable policy
position I have ever taken.  But today, more than a decade later,
I still feel the same way.

     That doesn't eliminate the real problems with nuclear
energy.  But they have to be viewed in context.

     It is much easier to have those concerns dominate our policy
since they are immediate, and the dire consequences that are the
focus of this paper may be decades away.  My responsibility is to
today, of course, but it is even stronger to those who have not
lived the half century I have enjoyed.  A policy that disregards
the viability of our descendants is a policy of no moral value. 
This looking beyond ourselves is part of the return to purpose.

     Further, it should be noted that the greenhouse effect is a
compelling argument by itself for nuclear power.  If the buildup
of carbon dioxide is indeed a threat to the world's climate, then
an energy source which produces no carbon dioxide should have
some currency.  This is an extremely difficult divide for
environmentalists to cross.  But the debate has begun.

     It's a matter of evaluating risks.  The risk of a nuclear
accident is quite knowable.  The risk of rising oceans has never
been experienced and thus elicits no strong fears.  But one can
begin to imagine the dimensions of such a calamity.  For me I
choose to take the greenhouse effect very seriously.  I hope I'm
wrong.

     Finally, it is interesting to see how differently
governments have treated this issue of nuclear power.  France is
a country ruled by the liberal Socialist Party yet is driving
toward virtually full dependence upon nuclear power.  They see it
as freedom from oil dependence and an end to the financial
hemorrhaging of that dependence.

     Japan and South Korea are strong adherents of nuclear as
their electricity producer.

     Germany is ruled by the conservative Christian Democrats yet
has closed off the nuclear option.  Others have as well.

     In the long run which countries will benefit?  In my mind,
the French have done the most to secure their energy future. 
They have decided upon a course which if followed by other
nations will render the Persian Gulf less critical and thereby
less likely to result in the kind of dilemma we now face there. 
It will result in less oil demand, thereby reducing world oil
prices and thus lessening the dollars spent on such oil. 
Finally, and most importantly, it results in oil never being
consumed as nuclear plants take the place of oil-fired units. 
The savings herein are staggering.  Oil Imports in 1989 accounted
for $45 billion of our $109 billion trade deficit.  The 112
nuclear plants operating that year in the U.S. saved 740,000
barrels of oil per day.  That cut our 1989 oil import bill by
$4.7 billion or about 10%.  Since 1973, nuclear plants have
reduced our trade deficit by a total of $125 billion.  As oil
prices increase over time the trade deficit reduction potential
of nuclear power will only increase.  These are enormous economic
factors which cannot and should not be brushed aside, especially
by a nation with chronic and massive trade deficits, more than
one third of which is strictly due to oil imports.

     There are, however,  two valid arguments against nuclear
power.  First, it is just another avenue to avoid the
conservation and renewable policies that must come first.  True. 
Any nuclear option must follow conservation and renewables.  Any
attempt to move to nuclear without recognizing this maxim is
properly doomed to failure.  This reality has been told to the
nuclear industry for years but has had no impact as they continue
to view nuclear development as a sainted option and conservation
and renewables as latter-day appeasement of wooly headed
environmentalists.  This attitude has served them very poorly
indeed.

     Secondly, the technologies appropriate for the future are
not in place.  There is merit to this argument.  The American
nuclear industry consists of scores of nuclear power plants,
virtually all of which are different from one another.  The
inefficiencies and hazards of this reality are not to be taken
lightly.  If every nuclear power plant is custom-made there will
always be problems since every plant has its own distinct
learning curve.

     The nuclear industry and the utilities have been foolish in
ignoring these legitimate criticisms.  They refused to rethink
how the nuclear option could be perfected and instead chose to
defend and perpetuate past practices.  They gave opponents no
reason to hope that critical self-analysis was possible.  As a
result, today the industry lies in disarray.

     The new nuclear age will require technologies in nuclear
fission which allow for smaller, safer, modular power plants in
limited design options.  Knowledge will have to be transferrable
so that talented personnel will be transferrable.

     There will not be any more 1200 megawatt power plants.  They
are too costly and no utility in this day and age is going to
take the risk of building one.  Nor should they.  In this case,
smaller is indeed better.  The future is in the 300-500 megawatt
range.  What about cost?  They will be expensive but the case for
nuclear is not its cost.  It is preserving fossil fuels,
lessening the hazards of oil dependence, reducing the trade
deficit  and minimizing carbon dioxide output.  The federal
government is going to have to invest in developing these new
prototypes in concert with industry.  There must be a sharing of
the financial risk in order to move rapidly.  This joint venture
would seek the development of two or three prototype models based
on today's design and engineering capability rather than attempt
to add bells and whistles onto twenty to thirty year old
blueprints.

     What about the disposal of nuclear wastes?  This is not a
simple matter since we are talking about materials that will long
outlive us.  But the problem already exists.  It exists outside
the nuclear power industry because of military uses primarily,
but also research and medical applications as well.  Given the
choice of finding a technological solution to limited amounts of
nuclear waste and finding a technological solution to massive
quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I will choose the
former.  Not because its easy but because the latter is undoable.

     But the fact remains that the disposal issue has been
brushed aside.  To advocate for nuclear must be to commit upfront
to the funding necessary to secure the disposal option.  Neither
the nuclear industry nor the federal government has chosen to
face up to this.  Until a disposal option is identified and
accepted, we will always be at a standstill.

     What about the concern for future generations if we leave
this nuclear waste behind?  This is a serious argument.  But
again a choice.  Nuclear waste stored in deep salt mines versus a
world in conflict over diminishing fossil fuels.  Once more I
choose the former.  Not because it's easy but because the
consequences of the latter are all too knowable.

     The research community must also be funded to develop
non-fission alternatives.  There are compelling reasons to push
aggressively for fusion options (or others not now known) that
may be much safer and more inexhaustible.  We are talking about
an availability that stretches well into the 21st century.  But
that is when its need will be most critical.  This must be a kind
of mini-Manhattan Project of the future.  A nuclear source that
can never turn into a Chernobyl.  A nuclear source that can light
the darkness for those who come generations later without the
dilemma of waste disposal.  This is the necessary technology for
us to develop in order to secure our safety and our descendants'
safety.

     Finally, it should be noted that there are other serious
economic consequences of the United States losing its
technological edge in nuclear power.  If we let our capability
wither, as we are now doing, sooner or later there will not be an
American company able to build a nuclear power plant.  All of the
know-how will be Japanese or French or whatever.  And when the
world recognizes the need for non-fossil fuel base-load
generation and turns to nuclear we will again have lost our
competitive position.  The trade implications of this are
obvious.  But it also means loss of U.S. influence on issues such
as safety design and waste disposal.  The role of the federal
government is critical here because only it can take the steps
necessary to coordinate the emergence of the new nuclear power
option.  The President and Congress must jointly agree as to the
necessity for this option and then provide the leadership to work
with industry to make it happen.  This will involve issues such
as funding, regulation and site selection.

Fossil Fuels

     People who don't like to contemplate the nuclear option will
want to take refuge in the notion that we can always go back to
finding more fossil fuels.

     People who dismiss conservation and renewables will do the
same.

     Let's go out and extract more oil and gas.  This is, in
essence, the current policy.

     The scarcity of oil reserves contrasts with the more
plentiful reserves of gas in North America so the two are not to
be seen as identical.  But the prime weakness here is the obvious
- the more we find and extract, the less there will be.  We
obviously do need a vibrant oil and gas drilling and production
capability.  For the next few decades this capacity is absolutely
essential.

     But beyond the available U.S. oil reserves, particularly in
the Southwestern states, the options are less attractive.

     Take the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.  There are two possible
approaches.  First, go in, exploit it and secure the several
months at most supply said to possibly exist there.  Whatever
environmental damage occurs, that is just the price that has to
be paid.

     Second, keep the oil in the ground, preserve the environment
and treat that oil (if it exists) as available to future
generations whose need will be much more acute than ours. 
Obviously, the first approach offers greater current political
advantage.  The second, however, offers greater fulfillment to
the generational responsibility.  Guess which one George Bush
chose?

     But the second also offers strategic value as well.  As we
face future crisis after future crisis occasioned by our
dependence upon foreign oil, are we not better positioned if we
have put into place alternatives and conservation and have the
maximum amount of fossil fuels still in the ground?  Put another
way, does not a Drain America First approach maximize our
vulnerability?

     But beyond these arguments, the Bush proposal to open up the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge bespeaks of how much our oil addiction has
diminished all our other values.  Alaska is not just another
place.  It is the most beautiful and most preserved land on
earth.  It is, by far, the grandest gesture we have made in
deference to God's wondrous creation.  To seek to put the
wildlife refuge at risk while balking at a gasoline tax to
achieve the same net result is hypocrisy in the extreme for
someone who talked about wanting to be the environmental
president.  The Democrats in 1992 should commit to veto any
effort to despoil this part of Alaska as a substitute for an
inevitable energy policy.  In many respects, this issue is a
"defining moment" for our values as keepers of the land,
protectors of nature's wildlife and guardians of the energy needs
of our descendants.

     But even in the lower forty-eight states, the concern is
where the fossil fuels will come from.  Once the relatively easy
oil and gas reserves are tapped you begin to get into some pretty
dicey alternatives.  Drilling a hole to extract oil is one thing. 
Crushing a mountain to extract oil shale is quite another. 
Drilling a hole to extract gas is one thing.  Mining arid regions
of the country for coal is quite another.

     This is not to argue against fossil fuel development.  That
will happen and should happen in the decades of transition. 
Indeed, the nation is looking to natural gas to step in and
substitute for oil in ways unexpected just a few years ago.

     This, combined with the development of ethanol, methanol and
other alternative fuels, offers real time hope of lessening our
Persian Gulf addiction.  However, the fact remains that the
conservation/renewables/nuclear options should be put at the head
of the energy line.  Only by doing that can we contemplate the
wonders of grandchildren and great grandchildren without the
burden of knowing we have sacrificed them for our own comfort and
convenience.

