A sizable live audience has assembled this morning in the University of Pittsburgh’s Law School for the Securing Our Survival Conference, co-hosted by the Ridgway Center, the Stanley Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The conference schedule and full slate of speakers can be accessed at the main Ridgway Center website here, while those of you online can access a live feed of the conference here.
If you have a question for any of the speakers, tune into the live feed and submit your query by clicking on the question icon at the top of the Mediasite window. I’ll field your questions and pitch some of them to the speakers at the conference site. We can also discuss contents of presentations in the comments section of this post, where I will be live blogging the conference.
20 Comments | 
2. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Joe Cirincione is laying the foundation by discussing how the launch of Sputnik during the Cold War created a climate of fear surrounding discussion of nuclear weapons. The fear is real, for as Nancy Eligator’s presentation showed, effects of nuclear weapon usage can be horrific.
1) Nuclear terrorism is a major danger. A nuclear 9/11 would be catastrophic, you could “put the Bill of Rights on the shelf and maybe never see it again.”
2) Existing nuclear arsenals. Recent episode involving US transport of bombs by plane dramatizes risk of accidental or unauthorized launch, especially in states such as Russia or Pakistan.
3) New states. Cascading effect in Middle East possible. 12 Muslim nations have begun exploring nuclear power reactors. Not about energy, is nuclear hedge vs. Iran. Nuclear weapons spread by neighbors checking against each other.
4) Nonproliferation regime at risk. Whole regime could collapse.
3. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
More Joe Cirincione:
Kennedy and Reagan visions - eliminate nuclear weapons. Current Bush administration switch from what to who - urge direct action vs. outlaw regimes that seek nuclear weapons, rather than seeking to eliminate the weapons themselves.
Every proliferation problem has gotten worse under this policy.
Fortunately, help is on the way. Rice recognized diplomacy necessary to dismantle NK nuclear arsenal. Progress on that front. Libya deal worked. Same can apply to Iran, will be difficult, but progress possible.
Nunn et al - not just an Op-ed, is a movement. Conference at Hoover coming where concrete steps will be planned. Albright focusing on practical measures.
Same group that produced Inconvenient Truth wants to make nuclear version of similar film.
Nuclear proliferation and global warming two twin threats facing humans, can be prevented.
ElBaradei, 2005 Nobel Prize winner, was right to call for international control of nuclear energy.
Need vision and will to address these problems.
4. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Joe Cirincione Q&A
Re missile defense: Big fraud.
Re nuclear reprocessing: Never works economically. Japan has 10 ton stockpile of plutonium. Fool’s errand. Not solution for waste. Reprocessing creates plutonium economy.
Re nuclear renaissance: CEOs salivating at prospect of positioning nuclear power as “clean” energy source to address global warming. Need full assessment of how clean it is. Nuclear needs to be part of the mix, but not in the lead role. Most important - make world safe for nuclear energy. Need Truman-like approach - internationalize fuel source.
Re second atom bomb on Japan: Much controversy, Franck report called for demo shot instead of attack on Nagasaki. Problem - Truman never really affirmatively decided to drop bomb, just decided not to not drop it. Were plans to drop third and fourth bomb if Japan did not surrender.
Re Sen Casey: spent 90 minutes w/ Joe and Corey Hinderstein to talk about the issue. Have to hand it to him. Impressed Joe as very engaged senator.
5. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Sherri Goodman
Background: Wrote about neutron bomb as undergraduate student, worked with Sen. Sam Nunn on ratification of arms control treaties. Career shifted focus from weapons to waste, working with members of Congress to address handling of nuclear materials.
World faces twin threats - “malevolent” threat of nuclear weapons and “malignant” threat of climate change.
Focus of recent work with CNA - climate change as security issue. Objective: move from polarization in climate debate (focus on is it happening, who is contributing) to military-centered treatment of possible security dangers posed by climate change.
Study group met with officials in London. Married analytic capability with military experience.
Military perspective: If you wait until there is no uncertainty in the battlefield, you know something bad is going to happen (same approach for analyzing climate change).
Findings of CNA study:
Climate change increases instability. Changes in food productivity, vector-borne diseases. Will be Hurricane Katrina X 10. Some conditions in Darfur due to climate change. Somalia - drought, scarcity.
Climate change is a “threat multiplier” around the world.
Challenge from a security standpoint, could affect us in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. Europe facing increased migration from North Africa. Heat waves kill thousands.
Climate and national security are related challenges. Threats based on way we use energy. Poised for possible change in energy infrastructure. Will be dependent on fossil fuels for a while, but need option for lower carbon solutions. Need to look at issue holistically.
Regional effects of climate change - migration in Europe, conflict in Africa, water stress in Middle East, many live on coasts in Asia - hurricanes in US, loss of glaciers.
Military impacts - Diego Garcia base flooding, could lose base with couple of inches sea level rise. Already lost Air Force base in Hurricane Ivan in 2004.
Will be opportunities for military to address climate threat.
DOD and IC looking at security aspects of climate change.
70% of tonnage we take to battlefield is fuel and water. Tail is wagging head. Big challenge for DOD - reduce readiness drag that moving fuel and water to the battlefield.
Gen. Zinni - will pay one way or the other. Either now, pay to reduce emissions, or later with climate impacts.
6. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Sherri Goodman Q&A
Re specifics on Pentagon strategies for reducing emissions: Defense Science Board doing study, slated for release this fall. Looks at energy across the board. Military 2% of all energy use, big opportunity to lead by example. Air Force looking at coal-to-liquid, may have limited effectiveness at reducing emissions. Key is carbon sequestration. When will be available for commercialization is important to watch. DOD beginning to look holistically at the issue.
Re key obstacles to change on nuclear policy: Changing energy infrastructure affects many sectors of the economy. Oil, gas, coal industries have lots of political power. Looking to see how they can maintain jobs as we shift away from carbon economy. Are now bipartisan bills in Congress mandating emission caps. Always winners and losers, as with big energy bills. Haven’t had leadership. Problem - energy illiteracy. At Bush meeting two weeks ago, U.S. called climate change a “global challenge,” but route to solutions still unclear.
Re anthropocentric tone of conference presentations: Worked a lot w/ Navy on minimizing impact on mammals, not much progress last 5-7 years.
We got a good question from Mason Miller watching online about possible coal-to-syngas fuel alternatives, but unfortunately not enough time during this segment to interject it live. [Goodman did not seem especially sanguine about possible Navy plans for similar technologies].
7. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Bill Hartung
Good news and optimism: More countries have abandoned nukes than developed them after Cold War; Obama, Edwards, Richardson advocate progress toward nuclear disarm. On warming, opportunity for global cooperation, like civil rights movement, bring out best in people.
Bad news: NRA approach (keep weapons out of bad actors) to nuclear proliferation not useful. We have responsibility to negotiate and reduce our own arsenals. With infusion of public support, can make real progress.
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) in 2002 - broadened contingencies for nuclear use. “New triad” - diversifying strike systems for delivering nuclear weapons, building missile defense, revitalizing nuclear weapons infrastructure.
“About Face” report - focused on how NIPP (Keith Payne) cooperated with weapons lab to develop policy recommendations consistent with NPR. Result - DOE focusing much on nuclear weapons, diverts focus from energy alternatives that could address warming.
Bush administration approach on nukes extreme - Reagan signed treaties to eliminate classes of weapons (much different).
Hopeful prospects - strong support to kill of Reliable Replacement Warhead. House support strong. Senate a bit more unclear. Pressure on Congress could deliver victory, would be second victory in recent times (RNEP before).
Negotiating w/ Iran important, Korea promising. If US takes military option off table, offer carrots to Iran, strict monitoring of nuclear program, could be deal. Ahmadinejad won’t be around forever. May be able to deal more with follow-on president. Mullahs pull the strings.
Would like to see worldwide summit, need political will. Next president should take lead. Past - partial test ban was product of mothers advocating against radioactivity in milk.
8. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Re RRW: Phasing out not a done deal.
Re think-tanks and challenge of getting US tuned into truth: Need media to do better job. If better format than he said, she said, discourse would improve. Gaffney example - funding for land mines may have clouded position on treaty, had big megaphone. Old fashion way, shoe-leather, conferenes like this, Kiwanis clubs, anywhere you can get a hearing. Need citizen groundswell.
Re full spectrum dominance in space: Concept still around, harder to implement than thought. Public discussions gone somehwat underground; harder to get media attention and discussion. Space dominance sidetracked by Iraq.
9. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Doug Shaw
US planning new nuclear weapons and new strategies for us. Questions citizens might ask before delegating authority for development of new generation of nuclear weapons:
1) How many nukes should US have?
2) How do current force stack up vs. current threats?
3) How can nuclear policy promote stability?
“Never again” approach - proper number of nuclear weapons is zero.
Deterrence perspective - keep weapons to stop adversaries.
Recent research out of London: Even limited use in a regional war could disturb climate and kill billions.
Congress considering RRW - first new nuclear device engineered by US since end of Cold War. Arguments for RRW:
1) US arsenal aging. But JASONs say several decades left.
2) Need new H-bomb to stop future testing. Could lead to more testing.
3) Need to test for reliability. Cart before horse - shouldn’t we decide if we want them first?
Curious debate about identity of RRW - DOD argues it is not a “new” weapon - device not designed to perform new missions. Important issue b/c NPT commitments.
Complex 2030 - Name change here too. Need to answer more questions before moving ahead.
Progress in on-site inspection, points to potential future reductions. Leadership by Britain, but US seems to be throwing in the towel - allowing START to expire. Need to multilaterialize instead. Non-proliferation norm under siege, several promises by US not fulfilled. Last NPT review conference seen by many as failure.
New H-bomb not necessarily safer device; depends on whether US makes progress toward disarm, reactions by allies, reasons why build, what willing to give up.
Consider three questions posed at outset.
10. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Doug Shaw Q & A
Re India deal: Don’t give up totally on India deal. Can be more transparent in promoting deeper reductions, increasing confidence in US commitment to long-term disarmament.
Re hair-trigger alert: Matter of presidential will. Issue of promptness not as current today as in Cold War.
Re diversion of resources from investment in weapon infrastructure: Clear we are spending billions on nuclear weapons.
Re Israel and South Africa nuclear programs: Amb. Graham toured S. African facilities and did not find anything remarkable.
11. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Charles Pena
Thoughts on Iran as a test case for nuclear nonproliferation:
- US policies of military intervention when US security not at stake is counterproductive for nonproliferation, increasing incentives for adversaries to pursue nuclear weapons (see Iran). US has never taken action vs. a nuclear-armed nation. Iran may be too far gone given Iraq. If I were them, I would not trust anything the US said.
- Long-range missile threat from Iran less concerning than transfer of weapons to terrorists. A nuke going off in the US would be devastating and catastrophic to that city, but not the end of the world. Cold War nuclear exchange w/ USSR was different. If we cannot recover from a single nuclear weapon going off in US, we are in trouble.
- Many make assumption that Iran would pass a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. But look closer - if you developed a nuclear weapon to deter the US, then passed a weapon to Hezbollah, that would likely trigger retaliation by the US. The Iranians themselves would have something to fear by passing nukes to Hezbollah. Hezbollah might also attack Iran itself. There is no history of these regimes giving away CBW weapons. Saddam and Iran supported terrorist groups and had access to CBWs, but neither regime passed the weapons to terrorists. Not to say they won’t pass conventional weapons, but they seem to be very wary about passing so-called WMD.
Food for thought on Iran. No ideal solution for fixing the problem; may have to ask what are we willing to live with.
Dual-pronged approach: 1) Do everything you can to stop nuclear acquisition; 2) Serious plan B that does not require invading and occupying the country. Gen. Abizaid said recently we may have to consider living with Iranian nuclear weapons.
What are the bright lines? Passing or trafficking nuclear weapons is an act of war?
Einstein approach: Keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Need to get outside the box and think about what happens when nonproliferation fails.
12. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Jon Wolfsthal
Original focus of talk: report on “Bridging the Divide” - Stanley Foundation project that brought together 20 arms control experts from different views.
Instead, will follow Charles and focus on Iran. Potential for common ground in that area. Iran issue will be with us in technicolor for awhile, unlike arms control in general.
Iran has clear interest in becoming nuclear weapons-capable state. Two implications: 1) We’re now on the hook, in the sense of the credibility of international law at stake - two UN resolutions call for Iran to suspend enrichment, but they have not. Iran has clearly violated its obligations under the IAEA safeguard agreement. If Iran succeeds in making nuclear weapons, the lesson is: cheaters win.
If nuclear power is to play some role in prevention of climate change, how will we make sure that its expansion isn’t aiding proliferation in multiple countries? G-8, led by Japan, will talk specifically about connection between nuclear power and warming; how to get developing countries to pursue nuclear power.
Going to war vs. Iran would be a complete disaster. Wholesale military response from what are seen as “natives” would ensue.
Therefore key question - are we prepared to live with nuclear-capable Iran? Saudi royal family may not. Skeptical about “cascade” argument, but neighbors will certainly respond.
Last point - are we prepared to impose a gasoline cutoff on Iran? They would probably retaliate by cutting off oil. Are we prepared to pay $5 a gallon for gas in the US? Sherri Goodman’s point - are going to have to pay for it sooner or later.
13. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Pena - Wolfsthal Q&A
Re diplomacy in Iran strengthening moderates: Pena - long run, it will. The more we isolate them, the more we accelerate going in the wrong direction. Only caution - engagement may not work either, so what are you willing to live with? Wolfsthal - Iran made great strides during 1990s under Rafsanjani. Engagement now w/ Ahmadinejad could enable him to play it up as a success domestically.
Re third way thinking: Wolfsthal - this is the big challenge. How do we think about disarmament in a way that de-stigmatizes the concept? Pena - lots of things need to be changed. If you want nuclear transparency, stop giving people reasons for wanting nuclear weapons in the first place.
Re “cheaters win” as larger metaphor for nonproliferation treaty: Wolfsthal - clarify not arguing that Iran deserves nuclear weapons. Wants US to abide by international law - Kyoto, ICC, Guantanamo. Should be making it as hard as possible for others to acquire nuclear weapons. US threats using conventional weapons for regime change drives incentives by Iran to develop nuclear deterrent.
Re Israeli perception of US carrot-stick approach vis-a-vis Iran: Pena - Israel has different policy perspective from US. Would have to work with Israelis, but at end of day may have to accept different opinion.
Re
14. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
[minor technical glitch at end of last comment yielded approx 7 min gap in live blog during Pena-Wolfstahl Q&A)
Corey Hinderstein
WSJ Op-ed: Linkage between vision and concrete steps in progress toward disarmament key. Explains what brought four authors (Nunn, Perry, Schultz, Kissinger) of WSJ Op-Ed together.
National Threat Initiative: 8 original steps, 2 added making 10:
1) Increase warning time. Hair-trigger Cold War posture. Pena talked as if that era is over, but it’s not
Regional security
2) Reduce size of nuclear forces in nuclear weapon states
3) Eliminate forward deployed, short-range nuclear weapons
4) US ratify CTBT
5) Secure stocks of nuclear material around the world – business-driven standard of safety on security side of nuclear weapons facilities – NTI project in the works
6) Controlling uranium enrichment processes – international fuel assurances, IAEA safeguards
7) Halting production of weapons-grade fissile material
9) New bullet – verification
Margaret Beckett – position of UK is to interlock vision/action; Must put goal of eliminating nuclear weapons on the agenda (Gorbachev)
NTI continues to work w/ WSJ Op-ed authors, working toward globalization (US leads), public education, defining pathways toward nuclear free world; verification study, fuel cycle control
Nunn – mountaintop vision. Nunn not comfortable with people who say “disarmament tomorrow.” But you can tell which direction you are going. Much progress – South Africa, removing HEU from civilian facilities. 20% of US power is nuclear; 1/2 fueled from former Russian nuclear weapons material.
15. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Hinderstein Q&A
Re radiation risks from nuclear power: If nuclear energy is to have a future, there needs to be a better managed fuel cycle.
Re verification of arms control agreements in US: Yes, there are some. We have a bilateral transparency mechanism with START, even though process is somewhat convoluted – counting rules, etc. SORT needs some more.
Re challenge of trust in expanding safety agreements modeled on the 100% compliant nuclear power safety regime: Peer review, but are criticisms; not open enough, etc. But because they are commercial interests, different situation than politicization in the government sector.
16. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Lisa Schirch
Story of community development programs in Iraq – example illustrates possibility of conflict prevention. Building political foundations for democracy while working through development goal. Statement by Iraqi: “Security doesn’t land in a helicopter, it grows from the ground up.”
Ranks of insurgency swelling in Iraq, level of hatred of US increasing (Sri Lanka example). Confusing – gap between rhetoric in Washington calling for non-military solutions and level of funding for such programs.
Taking a hammer to a beehive metaphor – military solution not enough. Complex security challenges call for complex solutions. More talk in Washington about need for solutions that go beyond military options.
Link between number of droughts and political instability – especially fragile states are vulnerable. Sustainable development immunizes communities. Public health paradigm holds that prevention is cheaper than treating symptoms. $5 million in prevention is worth $500 million in response.
3-D security initiative: Canadians started, spread to Swedes. Rendered in form of pyramid, with development as the foundation. Diplomacy can solve root causes of conflict.
New paradigm for diplomacy: Diplomacy is a tool, need to fund it. Priority needs to be keep people safe, not just states safe. Shift way we think about diplomacy – not just high-level bureaucrats. New Marine counter-insurgency field model endorses many concepts. Cool cities initiative – countering climate change.
US has only 10 foreign service officers in Iraq who speak Arabic.
Mostly US uses coercive diplomacy. Need more principled diplomacy. Nuclear proliferation and climate change challenges require this kind of diplomacy. Need to fully integrate environmental issues into conflict prevention.
Take away image – group of Iraqis working together – insurgency not growing in these areas.
17. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Schirch Q&A
Re challenge of framing terrorism: Good v. evil narrative too simple, world more complex. Roadside Iraqi bomber who earns $50 for bomb example – if we know unemployment in Iraq is a major factor driving insurgency (70% unemployment in some areas), we can help make different set of choices for young men in Iraq. Not right to write off as evil.
Re lack of infrastructure for promoting development: Often development projects get a bad rap. Girl education programs very successful.
Re community preparation and response to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina: New Orleans shows failure to respond; military had to be sent in. Local application of 3-D approach has value.
Re No Chile Left Behind: Difficult to measure improvements.
18. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Brenda Ekwurzel
Science lens is a tool helps inform choices – limited resources, so need to focus. Scientific background on climate change helps reveal pressure points. Are future opportunities. End with policy – not a wonk, more of a scientist, but can shed some light on where science can inform policy.
Half of sun’s energy comes down to Earth, but some absorbed, some reflected. Earth radiates long-wave radiation back to space. If it all escaped, we’d be a frozen planet, so it’s good that some heat is trapped. Natural process, but excess head trapping gases create problems.
Who are bad actors from policy perspective? Methane and nitrous oxide play a role, but carbon dioxide wins by a mile. Atmospheric concentrations in parts per million – CO2 far outstrips CH4 and N20. CO2 also lingers much longer than CH4 and N20, so if we make mistakes on CO2, we will bequeath the mistakes to future generations. If you act today and try to reduce emissions, we might be able to handle the load, since the ocean is buffering much of the load. We make legacy decisions in our infrastructure, WHO, World Bank, all will dial in how hot our climate will get.
Can measure heat trapping gases in ice cores - e.g. Antarctica. Can generate accurate record thousands of years into the past. Since 1800s, big spike with the industrialized age. Methane from livestock, rice patties, you can see the spike – same trend.
Natural cycles produce oscillations in global average surface temperature, but we cannot explain temperature trends over last 50 years without taking into account human factor. IPCC conclusion – heat trapping gases cause MOST not some of temperature increase over last 50 years. Very likely – greater than 90% likelihood.
Risks – seas warming, sea level rising, plants, animals responding and adapting, fall starting later, animals on move, up mountaintops. Changing their lifecycle timing to match seasons.
The more we emit, greater we risk a higher temperature, but there are uncertainties as the the magnitude of effect. Above 2 degrees Celsius rise, likely that most significant impacts start to occur.
If reduce emissions significantly by 2010, will still warm up. Still heat in the pipeline because parents driving cars, etc. Drought expands, more flooding. Storms, coastal flooding. Heat waves, heat stress, disease vectors. Can we adapt? Biologists say if we get beyond 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, 30% of species could go extinct. Melting of snow pack, increase navigation of Northwest passage, oil exploration.
North American and Pennsylvania – high-end projections - summers in Pittsburgh might be like summers in Alabama.
Are opportunities – CO2 is three-fourths of heat trapping gases. Per capita, we are emitting much more than developing world.
Need local, state, international, national cooperation – need that level of reductions. Science says is very serious. Some adaptation strategies may be big surprises. To do nothing, we’ve made the choice to possibly face these risks.
19. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Ekwurzel Q&A
Re nuclear power as possible solution: Should not look at one strategy as silver bullet. So many potential solutions shows possibility of local flexibility. Assisting developing world in finding clean energy path might be better than US investing huge amounts in nuclear.
Re possibility of not achieving goals of emission reductions: Can’t escape physics of CO2 chemistry – latent carbon dioxide will interfere with ocean life-cycle.
Re Arctic ice melt: Global climate models have improved, but notoriously not as good on oceans. Pacific inflow very important. GCMs traditionally under-predicted sea ice retreat, sea level rise, therefore we can’t hang our hats on the optimistic projections.
Re low-tech, appropriate tech solutions: Relates back to 3-D approach from previous talk – choice of who is making money in this economy. Germany viewed as leader in this area.
Re realistic : May overshoot goal of 450ppm and then come down. Need to reduce emissions a drastic amount, at least 80% to meet stabilization goal for western nations. Developing nations also need to reduce.
20. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
John Hanger
Pennsylvania is huge polluter. 1973 Arab oil embargo woke up public. When drive car, funding both sides in war on terror. Now import 60% of oil from nations who are at a minimum hostile to us. Emissions have been steadily increasing.
Economy disrupted steadily by energy disruptions. Pennsylvania gets 40% electricity from nuclear, only 1% renewable. 99% transportation from oil, 60% imported. By 2020, 360 million tons per year. If take significant step in the other direction, need to start to cut emissions. Business as usual energy road won’t lead to reductions, prices will rise. More energy wars over resources. Powerful reasons to take detour off business as usual road and onto “clean energy road.”
2 to 3 times more expensive to generate additional kilowatt hours than to reduce same demand through efficiency improvements
Biofuels not perfect, but vs. oil, it’s better. Wind may kill birds, but vs. mining, it’s better. Clean energy road cheaper in next 5-10 years than business as usual.
PA under-invested in alternative energy, need more investment in biofuels.
21. October 12th, 2007 Gordon Mitchell wrote:
Hanger Q&A
Re tier 2 technology: Requirement for alternative energy sources that the law established was less than what was already in place. Compromise essential.
Re challenge of getting legislative mandates: Very difficult. Deregulation has put premium on using energy efficiently. Power generators have incentive to use fuel wisely.
Re possibility of coal industry going abroad post-domestic regulation: Seas choppy, all in lifeboat together, some passengers already started to bail out – Swedes, Germans. Need to get beyond stupid ideologies on left and right. Dick Cheney is stupid right-winger, but there are stupid ideologues on the left too. Nuclear energy in US expensive, but may not be off the table in all parts of world. All need to be bailing.
Re possibility of federally mandated regulations: Not waiting around for perfect answer. Getting what can today, then coming back for more.
Re possibility of incorporating industry into possible solution: Are companies beginning to understand that they need to reduce their carbon footprint. Conservation is the cheapest form of energy (e.g. Alcoa here in Pittsburgh). Also fair to say those folks are pioneers. Even fewer are willing to go to Washington or Harrisburg and use political capital to get us on the clean energy road. Before we point all fingers at industry, look at ourselves. How many of us are doing everything we should be doing for conservation?