[This message was posted to PHYSOC on Sunday, April 1. - Jane Jackson]
Dear Friends,
I hope that you find this useful.
Best wishes.
AL Bartlett
WHERE HAVE ALL THE CONSERVATIVES GONE?
Living within the income provided by investments is prudent,
conservative and sustainable; where "sustainable" means that this income
can continue indefinitely. "Conservative" means that we are conserving,
saving, and planning, so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy
the income just as we do. In contrast, consuming the principal on which
the investment income is based is imprudent, liberal, and unsustainable,
for the obvious reason that when the principal is consumed, one is
penniless, and one must then continue on the liberal path, calling on
the government to become responsible for providing us with sustenance
and shelter.
When we live on solar and other forms of renewable energy, we are
being prudent, conservative and sustainable; we could live this way
indefinitely. In contrast, consuming the finite remaining reserves of
fossil fuels is imprudent, liberal, and clearly unsustainable.
We hear a lot about conservatism from people who claim to be experts
on energy. So what are we doing to meet the looming national shortages
of energy? First, we are cutting back on the research and support for
the development of sources of sustainable renewable energy. We are
moving quickly to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in
monuments and in other federal lands. This liberal approach will allow
us consume the fossil fuels remaining in the U.S. at the fastest
possible rate. Among the nations of the world, we act as though we want
to win the race to see which nation can be the first to complete the
consumption of its fossil fuels. If we were a private business, we
would describe this liberal approach as a race to bankruptcy. These
policies show no concern for the conservative point of view that is
characterized by thought for the well-being of future generations.
Instead, we see the rejection of the conservative sustainable way of
life and an enthusiastic endorsement of the liberal spendthrift way. We
are proceeding on this unsustainable liberal plan, knowing full well
that it means the infliction of environmental damage on lands that have
been conserved by past generations for our benefit and for the benefit
of future generations.
The ultimate abandonment of conservatism is seen in the rejection of
concerns about global warming and the effect of global warming will have
on our children, grandchildren, etc. This rejection is supported by the
non-conservative argument that suggests that addressing concerns about
global warming might hurt the economy. Perhaps we should abandon our
search for a cure for cancer, because a cure for cancer might hurt the
medical economy.
Where are all the conservatives when we need them?
I have a paper on sustainability in which I set forth the Laws of
Sustainability as I see them. If you wish to have a copy, please send
me an address for regular mail.
ALBERT ALLEN BARTLETT
Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, Colorado, 80309-0390
Phone, Office: (303) 492-7016,
Department Office: (303) 492-6952
FAX: (303) 492-3352
Home: 2935 19th Street
Boulder, Colorado, 80304-2719
Phone: (303) 443-0595
E-Mail: Albert.Bartlett@Colorado.EDU
THOUGHTS TO REMEMBER
Every increment of added population, and
every added increment of affluence
invariably destroys an increment
of the remaining environment.
Population growth and increases in affluence
make it impossible for reasonable increments
of improved efficiency in the use of resources
to enhance or even to preserve the environment.
You cannot preserve the environment
by accepting the population growth
and the increased affluence
that are destroying the environment.
Jane Jackson, Co-Director, Modeling Instruction Program
Box 871504, Dept.of Physics & Astronomy,ASU,Tempe,AZ 85287
480-965-8438/fax:965-7331 <http://modeling.asu.edu>