The Hopeful Environmental View

If the Alaska pipeline were built on schedule, or if offshore oil reserves were tapped in time, the nation would not face a serious oil shortage. If automakers did not have to install antipollution equipment, cars would get much better mileage per gallon. If electric utilities were not limited to burning the scarcest of fuels--coal and oil with low sulfur content or natural gas--there would be less chance that the cities will go cold this winter. The root trouble in each of these cases is one environmental law or another, and it therefore follows that the repeal or modification of those laws could alleviate the U.S. energy crisis.

At first glance, that seemed to be the direction in which the nation was headed last week. Congress passed a bill to speed construction of the Alaska pipeline, virtually exempting it from further challenge by environmentalists. In New York, Virginia and other states, cities were reluctantly preparing to allow power plants to burn fuels with higher sulfur content.

But so far, at least, there are strong indications that both Government and environmental leaders are striving for rational compromises to meet the crisis. Last week, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency staunchly defended air-quality standards set in the Clean Air Act. "We're going to be under continuing pressure to allow the use of dirtier fuel, especially coal," says EPA Administrator Russell Train. "But we're going to put much greater pressure on electric utilities to install pollution-abatement equipment, so that they will eventually meet our standards anyway." Confirming that policy, the Senate passed an amendment to the Clean Air Act last week that will require utilities to give firm assurances that they will install antipollution devices in power plants before they are allowed to switch over to relatively dirty high-sulfur oil or coal.

The House Interior Subcommittee acted to make sure that getting the coal does not cause lasting damage. It approved an even tougher bill to regulate strip mining than the one the Senate passed last month (TIME, Oct. 22). If it passes the full House, the bill will require surface miners not only to restore stripped land to its original contours, but also to pay a $2.50-per-ton fee to a fund set up to reclaim the land they ravaged in the process of digging.

Reversing Policies. The problem is to get through the winter, and to do that environmentalists are ready to reverse old policies. Michael McCloskey, executive director of the Sierra Club, favors allocating low-sulfur fuels to the areas with the greatest pollution problems. "But if supplies of such fuels are inadequate to meet essential needs, like heating homes and schools," he says, "by all means we should use high-sulfur fuels."

McCloskey even sees a silver lining to the crisis. For one thing, if driving is limited by gasoline rationing, cities will be less congested and also less choked by exhaust fumes. Moreover, he says, "the public will be made aware of the importance of conserving energy."

Indeed, environmentalists feel that the key to the U.S.'s future lies with successful conservation of energy. "President Nixon's appeals to drive at 50 m.p.h. and to turn thermostats down to 68DEG just don't go far enough," says Roderick Cameron, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. "We have to start thinking about cutting demand for energy with things like an excise tax on big gas-gulping cars and a change in our electricity rate structure so that the highest charges are for peak-hour users." David Freeman, head of the Ford Foundation's Energy Policy Project, agrees. Says he: "The extent to which we are successful in instituting energy conservation is the extent to which we'll hold on to our environmental gains."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.