How Willing to Pare?

Will Americans accept stringent energy conservation measures? The answer, according to a study sponsored by the Ford Foundation and conducted in part by the opinion analyst Daniel Yankelovich, is a qualified yes.

The study probed the impact on American attitudes of the fuel shortages caused by the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the subsequent economic recession. In interviews with a smallish but representative sampling of 200 Americans, 79% showed at least some concern about future shortages while 35% were deeply worried about a severe and continuing energy crunch. Nearly two-thirds (62%) said they had become less wasteful of energy and material things in general and had got "a deep sense of satisfaction" from it. A slim majority (56%) indicated that if asked to do so, they would be willing to pare down their standard of living even further. Indeed, 59% claimed that they would actually welcome a simpler life less dominated by material possessions.

Confronted with specifics, however, Americans can be selective about what they would let go if hard times returned. Only 6% of the Yankelovich sample would give up the family car, though most would postpone buying new models--as they did during the recession. While they would be willing to eat less meat (79%) and buy fewer clothes (58%), they would not unplug their washing machines or TV sets to save energy. Almost two-thirds would pass up cheap foreign imports for costlier domestic items--but only if convinced that it would save U.S. jobs.

The 1973 oil embargo, says Yankelovich, "was a heaven-sent opportunity to push for conservation--and the Government threw it away." Washington, he argues, should have made it clear that it was the beginning of worldwide scarcities in resources of all sorts. But if Government provides leadership, Yankelovich concludes, "the American potential for adaptability to shortages looks rather good."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.