Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watarts!cdanderson
From: cdanderson@watarts.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: grass roots politics + antinukes
Message-ID: <2112@watarts.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Feb-84 03:03:04 EST
Article-I.D.: watarts.2112
Posted: Thu Feb 23 03:03:04 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Feb-84 00:22:03 EST
References: vice.1302
Lines: 25



        Going to the Diablo site in Calif. or Darlington in Ont. are not the 
only actions in an effective anti-nuke (or pro soft energy) campaign as 
keithl@vice has correctly suggested. However, does this negate the action of
doing so and did he suggest that this was the only thing he was engaged in?
        As someone who has been involved in pro soft-energy education for the 
past five years and who has also done Civil Disobedience, I know that such 
actions can be both strategically and morally important/necessary as different
people have different capacities and reasons for carrying out that which they 
believe in.
        Regarding flooding of the Fraser R. system in B.C., I hope it never 
happens. Doing so would wipe out some fabulous wildlife preserves and scenery
and perpetuate our energy wasteful lifestyles. One of the reasons why we are
less cost-competitive with the Europeans is that our industries require 40%
more energy/dollar's worth of goods produced.  
        We should treat the question of energy requirements like we are the 
debate on HUNGER, i.e. if people are starved for energy should we just hand 
them more, or do we encourage them to become more self-sufficient?
This is especially important if the tapping of new energy sources will result
in the long term damage resulting from mega-hydro projects.

              From the not-so-passive solar collector of
                     Cameron Anderson
                     watarts!cdanderson