DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Isn’t it ironic that the political party known as “conservatives” wants nothing to do with conservation?

Here’s Vice President Dick Cheney’s famous quote on the subject: “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”

Much has been written about this, and it makes for interesting reading, because U.S. energy policy will affect your daily life (whether through conservation or polluted abundance).

Ralph Nader’s essay, Dick Cheney and Conservation, provides an overview of the issue, in a convenient 2.5-minute read:

Federal policy over the past century has largely failed to promote an energy system based on safe, secure, economically affordable, and environmentally benign energy sources… There is an alternative. Three decades of [research] undeniably show that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are superior energy options for society.
But embarking on that path requires overcoming the power of the oil, nuclear and other conventional fuel industries to which both the Republicans and Democrats are indentured. Under the thumb of the dirty fuel industries, Congress and the Executive branch have refused to adopt even the most modest, common sense measures.

A report from the History News Service examines the role of conservation throughout American history in a piece called Conservation — An American, and Republican, Tradition. I’ll quote the passage that describes how I feel about it:

Conservationists deflated what one historian has called “the myth of superabundance” and advanced a new ethic of regard and restraint concerning nature. The early conservationists … saw nature primarily as a resource for human use, and they claimed economic well-being as an outcome of conservation policies. But their utilitarian approach was weighted with a deep sense of moral responsibility for the future, for posterity. They struggled to leave us a legacy of open spaces, protected natural wonders and sustainable use of natural resources.

This week, the US has started a war on Iraq. The Bush administration wants us to believe this is about 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attack. It’s a convenient lie for Bush, and he has been reviled for it by anti-war activists. The truth is, there are a lot of reasons to want a regime change in Iraq, and some of them are even good reasons.

Somewhere in that mix is a pretty lousy reason — a desire on the part of Bush and Cheney to secure Iraq’s oil for U.S. consumption. Whether Bush plans to take it by force or simply install a government that is sympathetic toward trade with the U.S., I think this is a huge component in Bush’s justification for the war… or else we’d be fighting North Korea, arguably a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq.

In the context of war, U.S. citizens might be expected to pull together to support the war effort. During WWII, the government’s propaganga office pushed hard for citizens to conserve, because military leaders recognized that limited resources could affect chances for victory. Check out these old wartime conservation posters:

In a short but insightful piece called When Uncle Sam Wanted Us, Sierra Club magazine asks the question, “Isn’t there something more patriotic we can do than buy a new SUV?”

Despite war and rumors of war, turmoil in the Middle East, and energy crises at home, missing from the national dialogue has been talk of “conservation,” let alone personal sacrifice. Instead, in the aftermath of September 11, President Bush urged the American people to go shopping.

Subsequently, the Bush administration tried to push through the Alaskan drilling bill as a part of the new federal budget. The effort was defeated by a narrow margin, but Bush and Cheney’s mission is clear: there is no need to conserve, because we’ll provide you with all the oil you can burn, at any cost, e.g. $100 billion for the war on Iraq, and the exploitation of a 1.5 million acres of Alaskan wilderness.

Has the world changed so much in 60 years that conservation is no longer a useful strategy? I think not. We have an illusion of abundance, and it’s a dangerous thing. See CNN.com for details.