When the 1973 oil embargo began, the League had yet to establish firm positions on energy issues. They instead responded to the political and economic consequences of the crises, specifically as it pertained to the environment and public health. Many local Leagues braced for political leaders and industrial lobbyists to exploit “the crisis atmosphere” to demand “extensive damaging changes to the Clean Air Act.” Lois Jeffrey, one key member of the League’s Environmental Quality committee, recommended an “outpouring of letters from ‘grass roots’” to ensure policymakers held the line and protected pollution laws. She noted that other environmental laws might be attacked, including water regulations, arguing “power plants and refineries will use the ‘energy crisis’ argument” to advance their deregulatory goals.
A sample of the printed material local leagues produced to provide information on conservation and the energy crisis. The League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area, “Conserve Energy” booklet, folder 6, box IV: 244, LWV, LOC.
In practice, the League focused most of their energy efforts in the 1970s on education, working to provide information on the energy crisis and the importance of conservation. These initiatives seemed on the surface to be enormously successful. At its 1974 national conference, the League voted to form an Energy Task Force to provide guidance on energy-related issues. While the new group sought to establish its positions, the LWV Education Fund began producing booklets covering the “energy issue,” ranging from an overview on oil to the relationship between clean air goals and energy needs.
However, the League’s many members held disparate views on how best to approach energy, primarily centered on how radical the League’s energy positions ought to be. For example, following an Energy Conservation Conference held in November 1974, the League produced a statement on energy they believed was representative of member thinking, stressing conservation and the importance of educating the public on energy issues. But many local Leagues rejected the statement, viewing it as a series of “vague platitudes” with “no teeth.” Members of the Anchorage League, for example, remained confused on what the priorities of the League even were— economic or environmental—and declared the statement akin to “apple pie and motherhood,” meaning something everyone supported while not providing actual actions.