Search

A cursory glance at a map, a university curriculum, or a government organization chart will confirm that man has a remarkable capacity for establishing arbitrary boundaries. Moreover, he has usually claimed a degree of sovereignty within those boundaries which he would energetically defend and, if possible, extend. We would continue to believe that we could reasonably afford our independent behavior except for the recent “discovery” that the human environment is not only a complex but also a finite system. Environmental problems, or, more particularly, the harmful effects of man's activities on his environment, challenge our exclusiveness and affect our existing territorial, disciplinary, and institutional boundaries simply because they transcend them. Of the many factors to be taken into account in dealing with environmental problems two have particular importance: the identification of the geographical level at which action can effectively be taken and the choice of the appropriate legal and institutional instruments to be employed.

This report was prepared in late 1965 at the request of the U.S. House-Senate Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE) to review its program on controlled thermonuclear research (CTR), now called just “fusion energy research.” It was transmitted to them on June 11, 1966 by then chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Glenn T. Seaborg. The AEC is the predecessor agency of the current U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The report has previously only been available as AEC report TID-23277. This version of the report is complete except for the omission of lengthy discussions of the then current fusion research activities at various AEC sites. This paper includes, as does the original report, a copy of Seaborg’s June 11, 1966 transmittal letter and, as appendices, copies of a 1962 review of the fusion program by the AEC’s General Advisory Committee (GAC), a review of the Policy Paper by a special 1965 AEC committee, prior to its submittal to the JCAE, comments on the report by the GAC and the President’s Science Advisory Committee, and the charter for then newly established CTR Standing Committee.

Since the so-called ‘energy crisis’, practically all countries in the world have dedicated considerable attention to energy strategies. Some, such as France and Spain, have made straightforward commitments—;notably towards nuclear power—;whereas most have adopted series of measures aiming at further diversifying their primary and secondary energy sources.† All are, in addition, trying to develop ways and means to increase the efficiency of energy production, conversion and utilization. A great deal can be done in that field: indeed, a recent study carried out by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE, 1976a) indicates that the overall efficiency of the energy sector as a whole, currently about 15%, could reach 20 or even 30% in the early 1990s by the application of a set of quite stringent but feasible energy-saving measures. Economic activity of the 1990s could thus be twice as great as it is today, without requiring any increase in our present energy consumption.