<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>01584nam a2200205Ia 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">CTU_186376</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">210402s9999    xx            000 0 und d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="082" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">333.790973</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="082" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="b">E56</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Energy future :</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="b">Report of the energy project at the Harvard Business School</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2="0">
   <subfield code="c">Robert Stobaugh, Daniel Yergin, editors ; I.C. Bupp ... [et al.]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">New York</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="b">Vintage Books</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="c">1983</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">The book's value lies in its extensive reporting effort, its sustained focus (despite the tendency of many to dismiss energy economics as dull), and occasionally inspired description of mechanisms that perhaps need a greater place in the debate. (I had never considered the implications of a maxed-out global production system on price volatility, but obviously it could become an important expense determinant). In spite of my reservations, this book could be quite important if it provokes enough voters with the idea that &quot;bad stuff&quot; was happening to their energy resources. It would be wonderful if voters wanted to hear about it from their candidates, wanted articles in their newspapers, wanted to spend more - now - on developing alternatives. In this respect I think that the book is not sufficiently focused. As a debate generator it might have been better had it been shorter.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Energy policy,Power resources,Chính sách năng lượng,Nguồn điện</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="z">United States,United States,Hoa Kỳ,Hoa Kỳ</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="904" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="i">Qhieu</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Trung tâm Học liệu Trường Đại học Cần Thơ</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
