Charting our energy future: progress or prudence

Journal Article · Tue Apr 01 00:00:00 EST 1980 · Futurist; (United States)

OSTI ID:5435740

Cook, E

Dr. Cook says the US must decide whether to pursue the progress option of continued reliance on oil and gas to maintain its technological and social leadership or whether to adopt the prudent option of conservation and fuel substitutions to buy time for future needs. The progress option requires control of energy resources that will become increasingly difficult. Although the US is rich in resources, the problems of cost, demand uncertainty, environmental protection, social stability, safety, and the possibility that renewable resouces will be inadequate when non-renewables are depleted makes this a dangerous strategy. A steadier state of resource planning and conservation could be developing alternative domestic supplies which are free from external political control - the prudence option. This is the hard option, however, because it requires sacrifices of individual choice, a long-term commitment to real conservation through controls and possibly rationing, and a realistic assessment of the social and environmental costs of burning more coal and pushing ahead with nuclear power. Dr. Cook discusses briefly five reasons why a national decision for the prudence option appears unlikely. (DCK)

• Research Organization: Texas A and M Univ., College Station
• OSTI ID: 5435740
• Journal Information: Futurist; (United States), Vol. 14:2
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
ENERGY POLICY
DECISION MAKING
ENERGY CONSERVATION
FUEL SUBSTITUTION
INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
SOCIAL IMPACT
ENERGY SOURCES
GOVERNMENT POLICIES
293000* - Energy Planning & Policy- Policy
Legislation
& Regulation
292000 - Energy Planning & Policy- Supply
Demand & Forecasting