COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	@make(letterhead,Phone"497-4430", Who"John McCarthy", Logo Old, Department CSD)
C00006 ENDMK
C⊗;
@make(letterhead,Phone"497-4430", Who"John McCarthy", Logo Old, Department CSD)
@style(indent 8)
@begin(address)
Mr. Stanley Schmidt, Editor
Analog Science Fiction
380 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York  10017
@end(address)
@Greeting(Dear Stan:)
@begin(body)
	Your December editorial expresses a generalized reasonableness
about balance between economic and environmental considerations but
like the environmental movement generally,
offers no compromise on any specific issue.  Many environmentalists
are privately in favor of compromises but realize that as soon as
any compromise is mentioned, they will be fiercely attacked by
whoever is most radical on the particular issue.

	Consider just two candidates for compromise.

	Nuclear energy is
already providing 43 percent of France's electricity vs.
about 12 percent of our own.  How come Taiwan, with less population
than California and an economy five times smaller, has already managed
to construct and operate more plants than California and expects
to have 20 by the end of the century.
  When the French and Taiwanese began their nuclear
program we were far ahead of them.  Had we continued at our
pace before all the lawsuits, we would be
using no oil and gas for electricity by now and would be using
nuclear energy for hydrogenating coal to oil.  We would have a source
of the electricity for when batteries suitable for electric cars
are developed.

	Are the environmentalists willing to accept nuclear energy
in exchange for restrictions on oil and gas drilling?  Anyone worried
about the potential C02 problem should seriously consider it.
Not as long as their own political unity is more important than
solving the world's problems.

	What about slant drilling under wilderness areas from the
outside?  What about accepting that in exchange for the designation
of more wilderness areas?  What about accepting oil shale development
in exchange for less oil drilling?  What about accepting off-shore
drilling in exchange for something else or something else in exchange
for giving up off-shore drilling?

	When one considers the welfare of the country, compromise
makes sense.  When one considers keeping the troops in line and
the contributions rolling in, compromise is naive.
  Throwing a fit about
James Watt has infinitely better short term payoff.
@end(body)
Sincerely,




John McCarthy
Professor of Computer Science