(2 of 7)
After the first decade, new energy technology, including perhaps even the breeder reactor, will begin to take up the slack caused by depletion of domestic natural gas and oil supplies. Reassuring his audience, composed largely of industry leaders, Schlesinger said that the President's energy plan was by no means a no-growth, no-win proposition. "No comprehensive energy plan should be designed to bring about conservation at the expense of income, output and employment," he said. "So the first axiom of any comprehensive energy plan must be the maintenance of jobs, the expansion of the economy, the growth of productivity." In coping with the crisis, Schlesinger added, "we have a hidden asset: our past prodigality, wastefulness and squandering. Given that base, we have lots of opportunities to save, and we shall be saving in the transportation market, the residential market, and to a considerable extent in the industrial market."
Still, cautioned Schlesinger, "we face a change in American habits; that means constraint, curtailment. That is uncomfortable. Everybody will have to make some kind of sacrifice. We will not, however, be required to reduce the American standard of living. We are going to go on with suburbanized homes; we will have individualized transportation in the form of a motorcar. Both will have to be far more fuel efficient in the future than they have been in the past."
But even more than that, Schlesinger views the energy crisis as a blessing in disguise, a beneficial testing of the nation's spirit and ability to cope. In his estimation, the crisis, if handled properly, will provide the opportunity for the American people to recapture the old virtues of sacrifice and a sense of shared destiny.
The 2½-day conference was divided into five three-hour working sessions, each dealing with a specific aspect of the energy crisis. A speaker led off each session, followed by three or four panelists.
Then came sometimes sharp question-and-answer periods.
The five topics, with a quick summary of the consensus on each, and highlights of the discussion:
OVERALL OUTLOOK. In a word, gloomy. The U.S. will exhaust its oil and natural-gas resources within the next 30 or 40 years. Decontrol of prices might spur more U.S. production, but Democrats in Congress would probably block it. Unless American imports of crude are quickly curbed, the U.S. will be taking oil away from its allies. And the sums needed for development of alternate sources of energy are immense.
The lead-off speaker was the Senate's most powerful voice on energy, Democrat Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson of Washington. He opposed full decontrol of petroleum prices because "I don't think we should let our price policy be based on decisions by OPEC." Aware that many oil-industry listeners would prefer an acceptance of OPEC'S higher levels, he added with a smile: "I think we are going to have a real fight over prices."
The fight began immediately. In the question session, Fred Hartley, president of California-based Union Oil, spoke up.
Hartley: Today you are telling us to produce more old oil and find more new oil. Where the hell can we expect to get the cash flow from when we are using up oil reserves and trying to replace them at costs greater than what we are getting for our oil?