Letter to the Editor: Nuclear vs Wind debate solves little

The letter by Dr. Albert D. was very well written and I’ll classify it as ‘recommended reading.’ (Today’s issue of The London Free Press).

Perhaps, years in the future, Canada will be pursuing energy sources such as wind, sun, hydro-electric and nuclear with equal fervor.


(And pursue we should, with determination).

But as the debate continues (and continue it will, pushing the delivery date of more eco-friendly kilowatts well into the future, meaning we’ll rely on coal until all our hair and air turns grey) we should consider the cheapest, most environmentally friendly, safest, healthiest, most reliable energy source of all time.

Conservation.

For example:

If we used our own muscle power to wash and dry our clothes, instead of appliances that rely upon (to a large degree) coal-fired energy, we’d not only breath easier but the ‘where will we get eco-friendly energy - debate’ could drag on a little longer than it already has.

If we walked, cycled or car-pooled to work or play once per week we would reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels by 20 per cent in a five-day work week. More, collectively speaking, if you picked up more than one person in your 6-passenger van.

Sure, conservation tips are a dime per dozen, but the benefits are worth far more.

***

How many clothes lines does it take, in your basement or back yard, to drop the hydro consumption of your dryer by 50 per cent?

What’s healthier and saves you money at the same time? Consumption or conservation?

.