November 20, 1973
Page 37770
THE ENERGY CRISIS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. President, at the University of California-Riverside on November 15, our colleague from Maine, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, delivered a speech putting in perspective the relationship of the energy crisis and the environment. Senator MUSKIE's expertise on environmental matters is well known to us all. His work on environmental legislation has helped convince the Nation that we must place a high priority on protecting the resources of the world in which we live. But he also displayed an understanding that environmental considerations are not absolute, but must be measured against other needs.
Senator MUSKIE brought this same approach of balancing environmental against other needs to his analysis of the relationship between the energy crisis and the environment. But he concluded in his recent speech that–
With wise use of wasted energy and improved conversion efficiencies, the standard of living of our country need not be reduced and the environment need not suffer.
Senator MUSKIE's analysis of our national "energy budget," points out that energy used in transportation, for instance, is 85 percent wasted, and that current American construction practices lead to unnecessary overuses of energy.
A comprehensive national energy conservation program – including direct Government action, and research – may meet our energy needs. But Senator MUSKIE warns us that if we ignore the need for Federal leadership, and "if we sacrifice environmental standards as the first offering to our energy appetite, we will soon pay a much higher tribute in the form of damaged public health, destroyed water quality, more noise and congestion and, inevitably, an energy crisis worsened by neglect of its basic causes."
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator MUSKIE's speech be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
I
A recent study by the Stanford Research Institute ominously predicts that a mishandling of our energy crisis could yield an economic slow-down to a growth rate of 1.6% per year in the next few years. No unemployment prediction is made, but the conclusion is obvious: Jobs and income would shrink.
This report is even more shocking because it appeared months before the Middle East war and the cut-off of Arab oil.
II
We are facing an intense period of adjustment, and though we act under the cloud of crisis and rhetoric, we must recognize the deep societal shifts that are impending in changing our models of energy allocation and consumption.
We must ask ourselves some very difficult questions, the first of which is: How do we provide for the growing needs of society when that growth requires more energy than the available resources will provide? How can we best reevaluate our definition of needs and our allocation priorities?
In the past, the economics of scarcity have created great wealth and great poverty. For thousands of years slavery sustained the ruling class. Slavery was displaced by low cost labor. And low cost labor has been in large measure replaced by low cost energy.
We are entering a period in which there appears to be no readily available next step to sustain the economic growth and the equities of our society. We will be forced to rely on technologies not yet invented. To survive until then, we will need to discipline our profligate use of energy.
Our failure to make decision in this half of this decade may well result in catastrophe in the next decade.
It is easy to be overwhelmed by the irony of our plight. We cannot just turn off our economy – we cannot even reverse present trends without generating uncertainty and recession.
So we build and sell cars which get less than 15 miles per gallon where we should require 20 miles per gallon as a minimum.
We build highways for cars to travel 70 miles per hour when every responsible person suggests that wisdom dictates a rational 50 miles per hour.
We de-emphasize public transit even though most of our current energy crisis could be resolved if we relied on the efficiencies of buses and trains rather than the waste associated with private cars.
It is obvious that some in America would use the energy crisis to delay and or even abandon the environmental standards developed in the past three years. For more than a year the energy companies, in anticipation of their failure to meet our energy needs, have been building a case against pollution control.
I have confidence that the American people will see past this shabby attempt to create a scapegoat for failure. No amount of relaxation of pollution controls will invent new oil or new natural gas. Relaxation would only dangerously delay addressing the real changes we must make to protect our health and our environment.
If we sacrifice environmental standards as the first offering to our energy appetite, we will soon pay a much higher tribute in the form of damaged public health, destroyed water quality, more noise and congestion and, inevitably, an energy crisis worsened by neglect of its basic causes.
III
We are faced today with an immediate energy crisis in the winter ahead – and we as a people will be forced to make painful adjustments in our pattern of energy consumption to permit us to get through this period with minimum damage to our economy. In the long term, our energy problems may be solved by new energy sources such as solar energy, nuclear fusion, coal gasification and the like.
I want to talk to you tonight not about the immediate crisis we face in the months ahead, nor about long-term prospects for exotic new sources of energy. I want to talk instead about the conservation of energy which is now an urgent requirement that will be with us in the immediate future and for at least two decades to come.
In the short, medium, and long-run, we need to do all that we can to stop the accelerating growth in energy consumption in the country. This winter we will "conserve," which may mean deprivation. But for the immediate future, we must end waste. It is this process and this process alone which will permit economic stability.
Unless we can curtail the 4.5% annual overall energy consumption growth rate now in process and the 7% growth rate in electrical use, we will create impossible conflicts in many parts of our society.
IV
A recent article in Science magazine revealed that 60% of all energy is now wasted. For example, the average rate of energy conversion in coal fired thermal electric power plants is less than 40%. In nuclear plants the conversion rate is even less. We can obviously make substantial improvements. If we were merely wasting 10% to 20% of our energy, the task should be much more difficult. But 60% waste means we have tremendous options available through improved technology. With wise use of wasted energy and improved conversion efficiencies, the standard of living of our country need not be reduced and the environment need not suffer.
The energy budget is composed of many small areas of impact, and the only way to make substantial gains is to seek improvements in a wide range of activities.
V
The transportation sector is the worst offender in energy consumption. It is only appropriate that we begin our conservation measures there. Transportation activities waste 85% of the energy they consume. Only 15% actually goes to turning tires, grinding wheels, or spinning propellors. And the trend for many decades has been in the wrong direction.
We have moved from energy-lean transportation modes to energy-fat vehicles. Airplanes are eight times worse than railroads in energy consumption for every passenger mile traveled.
Automobiles are more than three times as wasteful as rail transportation. Yet we have been moving steadily and rapidly towards increased air and automobile travel. And the auto itself has become increasingly energy fat. For example, a 50% reduction in automobile weight could yield a 100% increase in fuel economy.
If Americans purchase lighter weight cars this year in greater numbers than anticipated, we will all receive immediate benefit from such action, for lighter cars consume considerably less gasoline than their bulky counterparts.
Think about this: If the average weight of automobiles purchased today were to drop to a level of 2,500 pounds, total gasoline consumption in 1985 would be reduced to the level we now project for 1975!
If this goal was realized, crude oil imports could be reduced by 2.1 million barrels per day in 1985. The balance of payments savings would be $2.3 billion annually in current prices.
Governmental efforts to shift to other travel modes have been meager and infrequent. Amtrak is really little more than a gleam in the public eye when compared with the massive public investments we have made in highways and airline subsidies. We can make substantial energy gains in the near term by making sizable shifts in transportation emphasis. A number of these changes could be made quickly without capital investment, because most of our public transportation systems run below capacity.
Disincentives for personal transportation such as limits on parking or higher priced gasoline and fare-free transit could cause an immediate shift.
Simple operating subsidies and reduced fares would have immediate impact.
Even where capital investments are required, much could be done in one to three years – in the acquisition of buses and rolling stock to use existing roads and rights-of-way – and could have substantial impact before the end of this decade. And the savings in energy and consumer dollars would, of course, be even greater by the year 1985.
We could save significant energy resources if we were only to reverse the shifts that have occurred in travel patterns and move back to lean energy travel modes. If that shift occurred at the same rate as has been occurring in the opposite direction in the last twenty years, we could, according to a Senate report, save 1.3 million barrels of oil per day by 1985. Such a shift would reduce by one-tenth the projected need for crude oil imports in 1985.
VI
Changes in the building and construction sector of our economy can yield substantial savings. Lighting accounts for 24% of all the electricity sold in the United States. A number of engineers have indicated that adequate lighting in commercial buildings could be reached at only about 50% of current lighting standards by using less lighting, changing to fluorescent lights, and spacing lights more appropriately. If this is coupled with other design changes, electrical consumption in commercial buildings could be cut to less than half the present level.
If construction concepts were adopted that matched the pilot project now being conducted by H.U.D. wherein materials and energy are recycled in development complexes, an estimated 40 percent energy saving could be attained over present practices with significant reductions in solid waste and in air and water pollution. In this project, the waste heat – a byproduct of energy production which is now emitted into the atmosphere or discharged into water – is used for space heat and hot water heating.
Similar kinds of conservation and recycling activities could apply to other industrial and residential developments. Such ideas do not imply drawing board experiments; in 1972, there were 22 plants in America using waste heat from electrical power generation for hot water and space heating. The idea is available now. To the extent that it is applied in new construction activities, it could drastically reduce the capital investment for environmental controls imposed on new power plants.
VII
Many of the steps needed require direct action by government. Let me use the utility industry and electricity as an example. We are not talking about a new governmental presence here, for government has traditionally been part of the rate-making process. We are simply speaking of changes the government can require through that presence.
Under present regulatory actions, a utility company's profits or earnings will be determined by the investment made in plant and equipment. Therefore, no matter what environmental constraints are imposed, it makes economic sense for the company to seek growth in customers and in the amount of use per customer.
The companies are trapped by the system. The utilities cannot be expected to behave differently unless fundamental changes occur in their rate structure. Electric rates must be based on higher prices for higher consumption. Not only will this protect people who consume little, but it will encourage large consumers to be more conservative. Rates must become a function of something other than capital investment in plants.
VIII
I must emphasize that to be successful, an energy conservation program must be comprehensive.
An attempt to save energy in one sector without counterbalancing action in a competing energy-use sector would simply shift consumption rather than yield net energy savings.
Even-handed pressure across the board is an absolute necessity if energy conservation goals are to be attained. It is for just this reason that substantial attention to medium range energy conservation activities is necessary. Otherwise, short-term energy fixes are likely to yield the same kind of chaos that has accompanied the uneven application of economic controls under phase I, II, III, and IV.
IX
Finally, U.S. energy policy must encourage more equitable distribution of the world-wide consumption of available energy.
We can do this by fostering technology that develops energy resources that are publicly available on a worldwide basis. Solar energy, geothermal resources, ocean tides, and fuels for fusion power can be distributed in a much more equitable pattern. Not only are these resources renewable, but they aren't susceptible to traditional patterns of ownership.
We can help other countries develop these sources of energy through investment in new technology. To pretend that such aid is not needed is to perpetuate an inherently unstable situation that may send severe shock waves through this country when the quake of readjustment occurs. How long can one nation use one-third of the world's energy – especially when that consumption level can only be sustained by use of imported fuel?
For a few more years, perhaps. But we would be ill-advised to wait until the end of that period before we seek readjustment.
We need cleaner and more abundant sources of energy. They will not come by writing a blank check to the oil industry or destroying the environment. They will only come if the Federal Government takes the leadership in developing energy sources as it did in the moon program to put man on the moon. A research and development short with an Apollo-type commitment can get the job done. And if we set deadlines and mount the intensive effort that is needed it can get done in time, especially if we take the conservation measures that I have discussed today.
X
You in this audience are living in a laboratory example of what our civilization faces as a result of unrestrained and undisciplined growth. In southern California, you have a transportation system designed to facilitate the freedom of movement of the people who came to the West to escape the confines of the overcrowded East. But the by-product of that system is an environment which is increasingly unliveable for its growing population.
The people of California had an early opportunity to learn about the meaning of limited resources. Nearly two decades ago, political leaders in this State began to recognize that supplies of fresh water were not adequate to serve the population growth.
Your leaders chose to find new water supplies – to develop a water import program for southern California.
Today’s dilemma is a limited air resource. The existing quantity has been exhausted and present quality is unacceptable. Unfortunately, we lack the technology of air reuse. And, there isn't any air to import from anywhere else.
The response to this crisis cannot be the engineering of new works or the application of new inventions. The solution lies in change in activities, lifestyle and the patterns of growth. One such area of change is in personal transportation.
Unfortunately, Detroit appears to be unable at this time to build an automobile that will meet the criteria which the Congress proposed as necessary to protect the public health.
They argue that the capability to reduce pollutants in cars is limited by present engine technology and by limitations on the supply of available energy to power cars.
Thus, if an adequate, viable economic base is to be maintained, this region is going to have to develop alternative strategies to move people about.
And if you doubt the necessity of this proposition, let me cite for you an interesting fact: Even if every single automobile on the road today in California, and in the future, met the purportedly impossible Clean Air Act standards for clean cars, this basin would still require a 50% reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
So I repeat, the question is not if, but at what cost and how long?
XI
And while this decision is being made, two other realities must be considered: The limitations on the available land and the limitations on available energy.
The energy crisis and environmental crisis are interrelated. The tremendous increase in demand for energy has a significant adverse impact on the quality of air and water.
Energy use is a direct measure of our growth, and air and water pollution are a direct by-product of that growth. What appears to be less well understood is that the shortage of energy and the shortage of air, water and land are not in conflict but rather are reflections on the finite nature of. the resources which support human activity.
But fossil fuels, like land, water and air, are not being manufactured anymore.
The finite nature of these resources forces us to become reliant on ingenuity. We must assume that invention, like consumption, will grow at exponential rates – a nice but risky assumption. It is this kind of risky assumption which has created our present dilemma.
Thus, the people of these United States have to make some hard decisions. We may have time even in the hysteria of the current crisis to make decisions which will minimize disruption, maximize the availability of limited resources and maintain an economic system which supports our population in a reasonably prosperous manner.
This will not occur in the kind of climate that exists today. We have to come to grips with scarcity and the need to distribute limited resources equitably.
We need to alter our transportation patterns to rely on public mass transportation where that is a viable alternative in order to assure the availability of personal transportation where there are no options.
We must recognize the limits on growth and expansion and begin to consider our communities in terms of capability to assure essential transportation, communication, educational and environmental services to our citizens.
The crucial challenge laid down for man in the last quarter of this century was aptly stated by Dr. George Woodwell of Brookhaven National Laboratory in hearings I chaired this year.
"We are the richest nation and we should at the moment be building the capacity to address correctly the questions of how to reconcile the needs of 20th century man with the facts of a living but finite earth.
"Instead we are watching the dismantling of science. We would be terrified, if we were thoughtful."
I concur.