COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	∂AIL Harriet Harvey Coffin↓c/o Paterson↑4832 Hutchins Pl. N.W.
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂AIL Harriet Harvey Coffin↓c/o Paterson↑4832 Hutchins Pl. N.W.
↓Washington, D.C. 20007∞

Dear Ms. Coffin:

	Meeting you at Fredkin's was interesting and pleasant, and here
are some suggestions for the proposal.

	1. The presentation should recognize that energy is a controversial
subject, and a certain fraction of the spots should present controversies.
The idea of having cartoon characters present the points of view will,
as you said, have the desirable effect of making it less a matter of
good guys and bad guys provided the cartoon characters themselves don't
represent stereotypes of good and evil.

	2. One controversial issue is whether the primary response to
the problem is to be conservation or production.  There have been recent
wire service dispatches to the effect that now that Carter has his
conservation oriented energy bill, the administration is going to be
more interested in proposals to encourage production.
Enclosed are copies of two of them.

	3. Nuclear energy is controversial, and I think that there
should be both non-controversial spots and ones presenting both
sides of a couple of the issues - say an economic issue and a safety
issue.

	4. When and with what economy solar, wind and biomass energies
will be available in significant quantitity is controversial.

	5. I am somewhat skeptical whether 12 good tips for the
householder can be found.  The biggest possibility for personal
conservation is in gasoline, and I'm sure you remember the wartime
slogan, %2"Is this trip necessary?"%1.  However, this is an appropriate
response mainly to short term emergencies.  In the long term, people
should be allowed to optimize their own welfare with prices signalling
the relative availability of different means of doing so.

	6. Do you dare make a spot suggesting that people accept
higher prices for energy relative to other goods and services?
In the long run, the expectation of higher prices is the main
motivation to accept smaller houses and cars.

	7. While I support the price mechanism, it may be that this
will also be regarded as controversial, and some people will advocate
rationing instead.

	I have difficulty accepting the orientation of the
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE section beginning on page 7.  It is not
agreed that there need be a long term energy shortage.  For example,
if either nuclear energy or coal is acceptable, there need be no
long term shortage of electricity in the United States.
This apparently includes electricity for heating.  Other countries
don't have the coal, but all have the nuclear option, and some of those
who don't have coal are pursuing the nuclear option more vigorously
than the Carter Administration.

	The most difficult energy problem may be replacing petroleum
as a source of fuel for vehicles, and it is important to stop using
oil and natural gas for electricity in order to reserve it for vehicles.
It would also be desirable to stop using oil and gas for heating.

	There is also the carbon dioxide question.  There is a possibility
that continuing to burn carbon for energy will increase the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the extent of a bad effect on world climate.
The problem is actively being researched, and better answers may be
available in five or ten years which is probably soon enough.  If we
have to greatly reduce burning carbon, the nuclear and solar energy
are almost the only major possibilities.

	I don't think that the spots should present a message
about "greening the world from the grassroots up".  At present, this
slogan is both controversial and vague.  In many respects, it seems
like a claim for political power by its advocates.  I cannot accept
that the world is to be saved by composting garbage and using greywater
in the garden.  These are games some people play, but not many people
will play them, and it wouldn't make much difference if they would.
Change in life style is something that is controversial.  Some of us
suspect the life style reformers of trying to use the energy crisis
as a means of enforcing changes they regard as desirable for other
reasons.