![""]("http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/06/science/tier_600.111.jpg")
The presidential candidates claim to see Americas energy future, but their competing visions have a certain vintage quality. Theyve revived that classic debate: the hard path versus the soft path.
![]("http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/tierneylab/tierneylab75.png")
What do you think of the hard path versus the soft path to America's energy future? Join the discussion.
RSS Feed
The soft path, as Amory Lovins defined it in the 1970s, is energy conservation and power from the sun, wind and plants the technologies that Senator Barack Obama emphasizes in his plan to reduce greenhouse emissions. Senator John McCain is more enthusiastic about building nuclear power plants, the quintessential hard path.
As a rule, its not a good idea to revive anything from the 1970s. But this debate is the exception, and not just because the threat of global warming has raised the stakes. The old lessons are as good a guide as any to the future, as William Tucker argues in Terrestrial Energy,