 The heart of our energy policy is, the heart of our energy problem is that we have too much demand for fuel that keeps going up too quickly, while production goes down. And our primary means of solving this problem is to reduce waste and inefficiency. Our trade deficits are growing. We imported more than $35 billion worth of oil last year. And we will spend much more than that this year. The time has come to draw the line. We could continue to ignore this problem, as many have done in the past, but to do so would subject our people to an impending catastrophe. Hello, I'm Paul Duke. On April 20th, the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, addressed a joint session of the Congress to propose a comprehensive energy plan to deal with the diminishing resources and rising costs of fossil fuel. Here with me to discuss the President's proposal and its effect on the American people and the rest of the world are Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Dr. David Schwartz, energy economist and professor of economics at Michigan State University, and Fitzhugh Green, author and former associate administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. In his speech, the President referred to an impending catastrophe. Do we really face that prospect, Dr. Seaborg? I think we face a very serious situation and I believe I would agree with his use of the term impending catastrophe. And do you agree too, Dr. Schwartz? I really can't agree fully. I would say that our immediate situation is a very serious one in terms of resource supply. But the difficulty is that we do not have the facts about domestic reserves of oil and gas or coal, and neither do we have adequate information with regard to foreign oil and potential reserves, not just proven reserves. So I would say we just do not know. Mr. Green? Well, looking at it as an environmentalist, I would have to say that we don't shed crocodile tears over this situation, but we have been saying in the official and the private organizations that believe in saving our environment for some years that has been an excessive waste in the use of energy, and that has caused, at least on a localized basis, many environmental disasters in terms of dirty air. So we are delighted that the President has come to grips with this problem seen from our standpoint. President has now laid out his program, but the ultimate decision about most of that program will have to be made by the Congress of the United States. Even in Congress, there has been some significant reaction. We also asked Senator Lowell Weicker of the new Senate Energy Committee and Representative Maurice Udall of the House Energy Committee what they think of the President's suggestions. How is the Congress now reacting to the President's proposal? Well, Congress is a big, bulky, difficult institution to move, but we can move when we have to. I would think that parts of the President's program will go sailing through. I think parts will be modified, and I think some parts may never see the light of day, but that's our system. The President doesn't make the laws, the Congress makes the laws, the President is the one person in the country who can give us an overall comprehensive proposal, and he's done that. I think most members of Congress start out with the assumption that you give the President the benefit of the doubt, and you go with his proposals when you can, but I suspect they'll be worked over and changed in some degree, and I imagine that some of the proposals the President's made will be changed by him before we're through. I would expect with the Democratic majorities and the power available to the President, you'll get such action. Were this a split, Congress, as it was prior to the election, I couldn't make that prediction, but I think that it would be a great source of embarrassment to the Democratic Party, considering they've got the chips both in the legislative and the executive branch if they didn't act. Our first goal is conservation. It's the cheapest, most practical way to meet our energy needs and to reduce our growing dependence on foreign supplies of oil with proper planning, economic growth, enhanced job opportunities, and a higher quality of life can result, even while we eliminate the waste of energy. Do all of you agree with the President that our principal goal must be conservation, the elimination of waste? I certainly do. I would say that it is a primary goal, but I would say is equally important is the question of obtaining clean fuel in order to continue the economy at levels which will provide full employment and goods and services. Now, there's no contradiction there, but essentially I would say I see a two-pronged program, the elimination of waste and greater conservation of fuel as well as accelerating supplies that are available and the means of doing so, I think, are very broad. I agree with Mr. Schwartz. The conservation and the elimination of waste is very important, but we will also have to develop sources of energy, old and new, and it would be my prediction that we will move in that direction. Let me ask you about a slightly different topic, and that is the President's proposal for the establishment of a strategic reserve of petroleum supplies. What will be the worldwide effect of that? Of course, he's proposing that one billion barrels of oil reserves be available in case of emergencies. This is about a ten-month supply. It depends on whether or not you're going to obtain those reserves and the actual accumulation over a long period of time or a short period of time as to what impact this will have, as yet that has not been spelled out. I would say that if additions accumulate, stretched out over eight to ten years, that's one thing, but if we attempt to get it in the next two or three years, then we, I think, will have a very drastic inflationary effect and actually there will be a reversal of an effort to try to curb imports because I don't see how, in light of the lag time required to produce new crude oil domestically, we could do anything like that. There is another aspect to all of this and that is, and this goes directly to the talk and the debate which goes on in this country at this point about whether Americans will now change their lifestyle, and that, of course, is something which affects us all, and it is the long-standing American love affair with the automobile, and you alluded to this just a few minutes ago, Mr. Green. How will this now affect the importation of foreign cars in this country? Mr. Green? Well, we were discussing this earlier and certainly it's true that if the same rebates that are being discussed by the administration were offered to foreign importers, it probably wouldn't change the level of imports, at least not right away. If the reverse were true, then it would not be as attractive a market for foreigners. From an environmental standpoint, as you know, any automobile that is imported into this country has to meet the same air quality standards on emissions that American cars do. So that would stay the same, therefore the program would have no influence in that respect. Is it going to mean that Americans likely will be buying fewer foreign cars? Well, there is that possibility, because as the program is now structured, if in fact they do not give the same rebates to foreign cars, and this has to be worked out through executive agreements and treaties. Now these would be rebates for what? Let's explain that. This is the so-called gas-guzzler tax as the terminology used, but in effect it's an efficiency standard. On American automobiles. On American automobiles and foreign cars. And let me give you an example. For example, in 1978, when this program would take effect if it's passed by Congress, there would be a tax on a car whose efficiency is 13 miles per gallon of $478. And if in fact you got 39 miles per gallon, you would get a rebate of $473, as well as electric cars getting that rebate. Now, if the foreign car does not qualify that same 39 miles per gallon car in 1978, does not qualify for the same rebate, obviously there will be a tendency and an incentive for a purchaser to buy a domestic car to get the $479 rebate in 1978. And essentially you have a bias built in here unless treaties are worked out to provide the same rebate for fuel-efficient cars for imports as you do to domestic automobiles. Let's look more closely now at the President's speech and a third point which was emphasized by Mr. Carter. Our third strategy will be therefore conversion. From scarce fuels to coal wherever possible. Although coal now provides only 18% of our total energy needs, it makes up 90% of our energy reserves. It's production and use do create. How will this conversion take place? Can it take place? Is it feasible? How do you see it, Dr. Seaborg? Well, it'll be difficult. I would have to say it's feasible. But there will be an adverse impact on the environment. In the long run, it's going to be possible to scrub the gaseous emissions to remove the pollutants and perhaps to burn the coal under conditions that will minimize the pollutants and even remove the sulfur before the coal is burned. All three approaches will be used. But for a while, we will be operating without good efficiency in any of these processes. They have not yet been perfected. Do you think this is a good thing, something we should have been doing all along anyway, moving more toward coal? Yes, I think so. I'd like to answer your question a little more broadly. I think we should have been working on this problem 20 years ago. It's because we haven't carried on this research and development that we're playing this catch-up game. It's the lack of research and development during the last 20 or 25 years. I say lack of. We've carried on some research and development, but we should have carried on much more, and that's the reason we're in the position that we are today. Mr. Green, Dr. Seaborg talks about the damage to the environment. How damaging will it be because we have had this campaign in recent years in this country to clean up the environment? Well, our position in the Environmental Protection Agency of this country has been from the beginning of the energy problem when a talk began to veer towards developing coal resources to fill in for the oil lack was that it could be done. And you've got to watch for the dangers of the transition, as Dr. Seaborg says. But if we get going fast enough, it seems to me that we can refine our control technologies so that there won't be that much danger. We feel that the Stack Gas scrubber to which Dr. Seaborg alluded, while expensive and not perfect, is an adequate control technology for burning coal for electricity utilities, for example. The electrostatic precipitate for knocking down the fly ash, again, is rather expensive, but it works pretty well. And particularly if you keep your generators as far away from the cities where you have concentrations of population, the danger can be minimized. What about the international implications of this trend toward coal? What does that mean for other countries? Is it going to damage their environmental standards as well? Well, I think this control technology is shareable. We've had an extensive sharing of the development of an environment program in this country with countries all around the world, through the United Nations Environment Program, through the Industrialized Nations Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development. We have found that other countries are developing controls as well as we are. We've learned a lot in Poland, for example, about how to get rid of the fly ash and the sulfur content of coal, because they have a tremendous problem there, both in the air and in the water. Well, the president didn't just leave it at coal. He talked about other trends as well that we could employ in our efforts to deal with the energy crisis. And we'd like now to look at Mr. Carter's fourth point. Our fourth strategy is to develop permanent and reliable new energy sources. The most promising, of course, is solar energy, for which most of the technology is already available. Solar water heaters and solar space heaters are ready now for commercialization. Is solar energy a practical alternative, Dr. Seabourg? Yes, in the short term, solar water heating and solar space heating, as the president has said, are practical. And by the short term, I mean the beginning immediately and running over the next decade or two. Solar electricity is another matter. I think there's general agreement that that will be feasible in the long run. But the time for that is more like the year 2000 or later. You're talking about solar cells, the photovoltaic process, or the use of solar energy to heat water to make steam to turn turbines to generate electricity. But I believe I'm talking about more than that. It's my personal opinion that we haven't yet discovered the method that we're going to use to change solar energy into usable form. We may go into a hydrogen economy, for example, somehow develop methods through research. And this, again, emphasizes the importance of research. I've got to say that over and over again that developed methods that can split water into hydrogen and then use hydrogen as a fuel, which is almost a universal fuel that can be used to propel vehicles, airplanes, and automobiles, can be piped to homes to generate electricity through fuel cells. It can be burned as a substitute for natural gas, and so forth. And there are other possibilities. I believe that we're probably going to use solar energy in a way that we don't understand today. What about the international implications of the development of alternative sources? Well, I would say that certainly to the extent that we rely more heavily on coal rather than on oil and gas, and specifically oil, with the President's objective of reducing consumption of oil by 10% by 1985, that certainly this is going to have an impact on oil imports, where currently it's running about 8 million barrels a day. He hopes to bring it down to 6 million barrels a day. With the greater emphasis on solar, but although the President's program foresees introduction of solar beyond the year 2000 in any magnitude, that also will reduce the imports of oil. So in effect, I think it will have a favorable effect on our balance of payments, but it will have a negative effect on exporting countries relative to crude oil. Let's consider atomic fuel for just a moment, because some weeks ago the President said that he would refrain from using or processing nuclear fuels and would not use plutonium in the building of reactors. Now he's been hoping that other countries would join us in that policy. Is that practical? Is that realistic? In my opinion, no, that isn't realistic. I believe that other countries need nuclear energy to an extent that the extra increment that comes from the use of plutonium through reprocessing they will consider necessary. And I would say the same thing about the breeder. The President hopes to stop the development of the so-called fast breeder, the plutonium breeder throughout the world. And I think this is unrealistic. There are some countries that just feel they must use all the potential of the energy in uranium that comes through the use of the breeder reactor. I'd be interested to hear Dr. Seaborg's view on what we environmentalists are frequently talking about in this respect, namely the problem of taking care of the radioactive wastes. I believe that problem is solvable. It can be disposed of in a number of ways. You don't share the President's concern here. I don't know that I would say I don't share his concern. He does feel that we will need, he puts it as a last resort, but nevertheless we will need the conventional reactors, the so-called water cooled reactors. And he has even called for a streamlining of the licensing process so that these can be built more expeditiously. Well in his follow-up press conference on Friday, April 22nd, President Carter spoke of international cooperation in the energy field. I think it's accurate to say that we've now taken the leadership in moving toward a comprehensive energy policy for our nation. I would hope that the other nations around the world would do a similar thing. There are other aspects of the energy question though that must be addressed. One is atomic energy, a reprocessing of spent nuclear fuels, a move toward non-proliferation of atomic explosive capability. So there will be a very complicated interrelationship involving trade. I think to the extent that we do conserve in our own country, we make it easier for our European allies and for Japan to meet their own energy needs. We now sap so much extra oil from the international supplies that it makes it more difficult for them. I think this will over a period of time reduce the intense competition that's inevitable for dwindling supplies of oil in the face of increasing demand. Dr. Schwartz, you talked a while ago about the inflationary impact of the President's program, but taking that program as a comprehensive package and looking at it overall, what effect do you think it will have on the economies of other countries, on the world if it is approved by Congress substantially as recommended? Taking the program as it's now structured, what the President is looking for is a very marked decline in imports of oil, a major shift to coal going from about 665 million tons of coal to about 1 billion tons of coal, with a greater reliance therefore on domestic resources, particularly coal as a substitute for oil and gas. The automobile effect in terms of the tax and the rebate program has a potential with regard to imports versus domestic production of cars. I would say that as yet we can't be certain, but the direction of the program I think leads to three conclusions. One, that there is going to be a greater emphasis on domestically produced cars as over against foreign imports. Two, with a decline of imported crude oil, it will make available fuel to other countries which in fact they may have been outbid for by U.S. imports. And three, with the greater shift to coal, the fact that you will release fuels and particularly crude for foreign countries. Let's go back to our congressional spokesman now and ask Congressman Udall and Senator Weicker how they see the international implications. Well I think the only countries that it's really going to impact on are the OPEC nations because I think the message is clear. We're not going to be in the market to buy their product to the extent that's been the case in the past. I think that their price which they've set, which is not a free market price, but an artificial one, is going to be forced into the arena of the free market. And that's all to the good as long as we continue to act like a drunk in a whiskey store they could charge anything they wanted. It's obvious that we're going through a sobering up process here and hopefully even though we won't be tea totalers, we'll be behaving in some rational way which can't help but impact on them. We don't live in an island anymore. We're the biggest trading country in the world and what happens to our economy has reverberations in Europe and Asia and elsewhere. It's hard to predict all of the consequences. I was visited here by a delegation of Japanese congressmen legislators who are very concerned that our switch on the policy of using plutonium and reprocessing impinges very heavily on them. We had encouraged them to go to reprocessing and they were planning on breeder reactors. They don't have the coal and oil that we have. Obviously they're going to be hit very hard by some of those features. The European nations will also be impacted to a considerable degree. So I think what we do obviously is of great importance to the rest of the world and we're going to have to take into account the international impacts of the decisions we make here. Mr. Borg, how do you see the worldwide implications? Well, I see a situation throughout the world where we will never again be in a position to take our energy supply for granted. We and all the other countries in the world are going to have to work at it as a continuing problem. Mr. Green? Well, one of the things that makes us environmentalists content about the approach of this country through the leadership of our president to solving this problem is he has consistently talked about meeting these new objectives and transitional exercises and switching from oil to coal, for example, and perhaps more nuclear effort, is that the environmental gains that have been made over the past seven years won't be given up and I would hope that as other nations watch what we're up to here and we'll not forget the lessons of Stockholm where in 1972 the entire world got together and decided that whatever the problems of the future would be, they would be considered in terms of what the environmental cost would be and there had been a great deal of improvements and the control of pollution in many of the countries around the world since then and I would hope that as they, other countries take up this problem from a national standpoint that they continue to hold on to the gains that were started at Stockholm. One crucial question in all of this is will our attempt to deal with a problem on a broad basis create new world tensions? Will it affect American foreign policy in a significant way that could be harmful? Or will say draw the Western nations closer together now? Will it lead to more unity despite the problems that involve inflation and trade and imports and that kind of thing? Well I'm an optimist on that. It seems to me that mankind has shown that when they have a common problem they forget political tensions and so forth and in so far as we can keep this situation from turning into an increase in competition for scarce resources and concentrate rather on how to solve it as it happened in many of the other areas that the UN has gotten at the International Postal Union, the International Telecommunications Union and other the World Health Organization where the world has gotten together to solve problems rather than fight with itself. I think it's a marvelous opportunity for all the nations of the world to sit down and work this out together. I would say that certainly two effects I think are fairly obvious. One is if the program is successful there should not be the type of pressure on world oil supplies that currently exist and therefore that if anything I think should mitigate tensions because there has been a great deal of competition for very limited oil. In addition to the degree that we could share technologies to mitigate the environmental effects that should bring the countries together and while with regard to the plutonium breeder it has created tensions hopefully we could substitute other forms of uranium availability and enrichment to in some way modify those tensions. Do you remain optimistic too Dr. Seaborg? Yes, I am generally optimistic. The problems can be solved. The science and technology has the means to solve them but it does mean that we should be planning, plan for the future better than we have in the past and carry on the research and development in order to provide for the energy sources of the future. We do not have available today the energy sources that will see us through the 21st century. Well thank you gentlemen for coming here and participating in this most enlightening discussion today and our thanks also to Senator Lowell Weicker and Congressman Maurice Udall for giving us their viewpoints as well. I'm Paul Duke in Washington. Thank you.