from Exxon, Amaco, Mobile, Conoco, Westinghouse and others who have 

 succeeded in locating themselves in 20 of our counties right now. And 

 somewhere in the discusson in the next few days we really ought to talk 

 abouP'acid rainfall and cabon dioxide because that is exactly what synfuels 

 development is going to double or produce. Now I don't really want to go 

 into this right now a I don't know a whole about it, but I just want to say 

 that it troubles me a great deal recently that we hear so little about it. 

 Scientists are beginning to talk about it, but where are the presidential 

 candidates that are all up there talking these days? I haven't heard a 

 word about it and they are all promoting synfuels development as the 

 answer to our energy problems. They all are. Why aren't they talking 

 about that problem? 



I just want to make two points as far as considering our future. The 

 first point is that energy conservation is the cheapest, the safest and the 

 only readily available source of energy. There are absolutely no 

 short-cuts to securing it and yet we see very little today other than a 

 token kind of action on the part of state as well as federal government in 

 promoting it. And my second point is this, that the transition to renewable 

 energy systems in this country is inevitable. A very reasonable goal 

 which our present administration has set for itself is to supply 20 percent 

 of this country's energy by renewable, solar kinds of energy by the year 

 2,000. Yet the present commitment that we have made absolutely insures 

 that we will be no where close, no where close. I keep thinking that 

 perhaps the ultimate tragedy of all of the synfuels discussion and the road 

 that we seem to be taking is that at the end of all of that, at the end of 

 that sacrifice it's possible that we will be no closer to finding something 

 stable and permanent than we are today. That is a strong possibility. I 

 think one of the very best actions ever taken by the Montana 

 legislature--and I was there when it happened--was the establishment of 

 the 30 percent tax on coal in 1975 and I feel that one of the very best 

 actions ever taken by the citizens of this state was to invest 50 percent of 

 that for future generations in a coal trust fund, knowing that they won't 

 have that resource and they'll need something else. Now that 30 percent 

 tax is predicted to bring in over $100 million during the biennium. That's 

 over two years, $100 million. And, just the interest from what we are 

 investing, the interest which goes to our general fund, will bring $5 

 million for the biennium. That's pretty significant, and I am ready to 

 defend it right up to the end. I think it's really justified. But one 

 would hope that a state taking this avenue, this path, would rely on the 

 revenue from that tax, from that nonrenewable fossile fuel to bridge us to 

 a time when that resource will be gone. Instead, what we are really doing 

 is that we are becoming addicted to that new revenue in Montana. A mere 

 $2.5 million out of that $100 million is going to renewable energy research 

 and development. Now that's better than a lot of states are doing, I will 

 admit that, but considering the total amount it's really not that much. 

 And absolutely no attention... zip... no attention is being given to energy 

 conservation out of that $100 million. We really don't have an energy 

 conservation program in this state on our own. Listen to the political races 

 that are taking place nationally and statewide. I don't think you'll hear a 

 single candidate address the problems of energy without saying energy 

 conservation must be the cornerstone of our energy policy. How many 



