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