Does our energy future imply only a set of dismal choices? The risks of nuclear power or air pollution from new power plants? The risk to wildlife from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee or the Rocky Mountain Front? While it's irresponsible to ignore trade-offs, these are not the important questions we face.

Energy conservation at "any cost" is not our objective. For example, we could save an ocean of fuel by banning travel speeds higher then 40 mph, by closing down the energy demanding Internet, and by ending LifeFlights of the injured to trauma centers.

We protect the environment because of qualities we value. They include: human health, natural beauty, and the preservation other species. But we also value fresh produce in winter, comfortable housing, and fast and convenient transportation. The questions we face all involve balancing competing values. In what combination and in what amounts should we seek the things we want?

Good, responsible answers are more likely if we correct a fundamental error. Here's the error: Most environmental problems are due to modernization or affluence. In fact, across time and cultures technological advances and increased wealth have improved, not reduced, environmental quality.

We've achieved remarkable gains in energy efficiency. In 1700 a steam engine converted into work only about one percent of the energy produced. Three hundred years later, today's gas fired turbines have reached 50 percent of their natural limit. Engineers expect the fuel cells that will power our cars in 20 to 30 years will likely reach about 70 percent efficiency.

Another sign of progress is the slow but constant "decarbonization" of our energy systems. The molecules of carbon used to provide one unit of energy or economic product has steadily declined for the past 100 years. This is good news for the environment. For it's the spills and emissions of carbon that oils beaches and warms the climate.

How can we account for this progress? The answer is straightforward: In a competitive economy, and when people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions, pollution and waste indicate inefficiency. And without government protection, inefficient processes are filtered out. The market process, like evolution, is a constant search for fitness. In the long run, companies face persistent economic and social pressures to become green.

But here's the great energy paradox: at the margins, energy efficiency reduces the cost of energy services and thus increases-not decreases-energy consumption. This is a well-known phenomenon called the "rebound effect."

Consider automobiles. Greater fuel efficiency should save energy. But fuel consumption increases whenever automobile fuel efficiency goes up, for at lower cost, people drive more. Further, folks understand that physical mass saves lives, hence they buy larger vehicles. As a result, gains from fuel efficiency evaporate.

The constant search for innovation and efficiency stretches each BTU ever farther. Yet, American society and our high tech economy is ever more energy hungry. Total U.S. electricity consumption is projected to rise another 20 percent to 30 percent over the next 10 years.

Progress, not greed or immorality, drives this demand for energy. For example, sending a 2 megabyte e-mail burns a pound of coal. Running the Internet consumes eight percent of our power output. Approximately 15 percent of all U.S. energy use is consumed in the manufacture and operation of computers.

When considering energy production we should acknowledge that every undertakings have costs and benefits. We may feel righteous for condemning consumers as immoral for wanting the "wrong" things. This however, ignores the reality of people trading off among many positive values. Responsible adults understand that environmental quality is only one of several competing goods.

"Renewables" (e.g., solar and wind) will play only a limited in the short and medium-term. In 1999 solar and wind generation provided less than two tenths of one percent of U.S. energy supply. The prediction for 2020 is for three tenths of one percent. Towards the end of the century, perhaps solar will be a major player. But for the next decade almost all new energy demand will be met by fossil fuels.

The power of compounding technological progress, even at one or two percent per year, has dramatically changed the modern world. Conservation, innovation, and competition work relentlessly. These processes drive our economy towards an ever cleaner future.