A QUESTION OF ENERGY CONSERVATION

And then, of course, there is the main argument of the Green Priests who are using the great impending disaster of global warm-ing disaster for de-industrialization. The only salvation, we are told, is energy conservation.

Now why is it that energy conservation is on the pedestal where motherhood and apple pie used to be (before they fell victim to population control and calorie counts, respectively)? If it is such a good thing, why does it have to be pushed by coercive legislation and be enforced by the gun?

Because in Green Theology coercive and virtuous is the same thing. Then why is there no law enforcing jewel conservation? Why is it not prohibited to flush diamonds down the toilet?

It is irrelevant, for it rests on the assumption that an answer that is true must also be to the point; so why not answer "because the polar night lasts 6 months"?

It is totally inconsistent because the Green Church's sermons preach that you can live without energy, or at least without sig-nificant amounts of it. The Romanians under Ceausescu lived with 40 kWh per month, didn't they? And in Burundi they probably make do with even less.

And it is devious because the real reason why they do not object to throwing out diamonds is that it hurts only the individual owner; but stifling energy hurts all of industry and is eventually hoped to kill the system.

Erich Honecker, for one. Amory Lovins, for another.

To treat energy conservation as an energy source is another trick in the Green rituals. If the flock of the faithful really believed it, they would forego their incomes and live off their savings.

Finally, what reason is there to conserve uranium, which has vir-tually no other uses than as a fuel, and whose utilization cleanses (just a little) the earth of radioactivity?