Any conservation helps |

Any conservation helps

After being lectured by Marco Diaz in Friday’s Aspen Times, Steve Custenborder and the rest of us now know we don’t have anything to contribute to the debate on conservation versus consumption or on who should occupy the White House in the next four years.

Following Diaz’ arguments, it seems our only action is to commit suicide so that we won’t be consuming hydrocarbons. At the least, everyone in the Roaring Fork Valley should rent a U-Haul, burn our houses so no one else can occupy them, and build new places to live in Florida or Southern California so we can be near the food we consume. If you pre-

n see Letters on page A12

n continued from page A11

fer pork chops to fruits and vegetables, move to Iowa.

The thesis of Diaz’ letter seems to be that since you have such a big footprint on the environment, you shouldn’t try to reduce it at all. This reminds me of the same argument I heard during the Vietnam War about American casualties in the war. Some people said that since 50,000 people died on the highways every year, what was the difference if a few more died in the war?

There is a lot of difference between someone who needs to own a small pickup to get his tools to work and someone who owns a Hummer just so he can drive the biggest vehicle on the road. Conservation is not deprivation, unless of course your ego is deprived because you can’t drive a big vehicle. Even conserving a small amount is helpful. If the United States were to reduce its energy consumption by 10 percent, Halliburton would not have had to invade Iraq.

Gerald R. Terwilliger



See more