About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

410 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. ix (1973)

handle is hein.cow/anamacp0410 and id is 1 raw text is: PREFACE The essays in this issue of THE ANNALS indicate that it is incorrect to interpret the commonly used term energy crisis as one which describes the United States as in imminent danger of being without sources of energy. From this perspective, the energy crisis is a myth. Instead, the essays suggest that the proper, and milder, definition of the energy situation in which we find ourselves is that we as a nation face the necessity of making critical choices about balancing the three basic costs associated with continued high energy use; some choices may occasion alterations in the way Americans are accustomed to living.1 The three costs which many believe form the parameters of choice within which energy decisions will have to be made are: (1) the dollar costs which must be paid for the use of any particular form of energy; (2) the recently quoted national security costs which are based upon the increasing dependence of the United States for energy imports from poten- tially unstable areas of the world or energy imports which must be transported across sealanes and land areas which some consider to be jeopardized by possibly hostile foreign powers; (3) the costs of environ- mental degradation which are occasioned by certain types of energy use. To many, all three types of costs appear to be rising, at least for the near term or until secure foreign supplies can be obtained, the fear of the interruption of foreign imports is quieted or new fuel sources are made commercially viable. These circumstances make the business of striking trade-offs particularly difficult. To enable the reader to reach his own decisions about the importance of the various costs and which trade-offs, therefore, seem most reasonable, the editors obtained essays from individuals who profess different opinions and who write from varying vantage points. The first essay sets the stage for those which follow; S. David Freeman offers an overview of the energy situation which faces the United States. The four essays which follow are written by individuals intimately familiar with the three most commonly used fuels-coal, natural gas and oil-and two of the most likely candidates to replace the fossil fuels in the future-nuclear and solar energy. Of course, there are other candidates for replacing the fossil fuels as they gradually become depleted; however, the limited space available to the editors forced them to select only the most promising new sources for discussion.2 The remainder of the essays-which constitute the majority of those presented-set forth various perspectives, from three broad areas of con- cern, of the energy situation and alternative responses thereto; there are 1. It should be noted that neither the editors nor the contributors consider a national return to a much simpler life-with attendant substantial reductions in energy use-to be a viable, serious alternative to continued high energy use. 2. The editors realize that their judgment of which are the most promising new energy sources may be overridden in the future by technological advance. ix

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most