THE ENERGY WAR

So now the one-week blitz was over--the most intensive effort by a U.S. President, in or out of wartime, to rally the nation behind a common cause. A stream of high Government officials sought out television interviews and speech appearances to continue the crusade. Politicians searched for the high ground from which to fight the months of battles that lay ahead. The Administration began releasing figures to show how much money it thinks the average American consumer would actually be saving --instead of losing--under the President's program. And Jimmy Carter had clearly achieved his first, vital goal: he had captured the public's attention and convinced a vast majority of Americans that the nation's energy shortage was genuine and steadily growing worse.

Not everyone was at all certain that, as the President claimed, a "national catastrophe" would ensue if nothing was done to check the spiraling U.S. dependence on imported oil and rapidly depleting gas and America's wasteful ways. But as TIME correspondents probed public reaction across the country to Carter's triple TV assault, only a few cynics were still insisting that the energy crisis was a nefarious conspiracy by Big Oil and Big Government to drive up the price of fuel and fleece the citizen. Across the political spectrum and through the many segments of U.S. society, Carter was being applauded for asking the nation to confront the painful truths about energy.

"There's no doubt we have a crisis upon us," declared James Thompson, the new Republican Governor of Illinois. "The President is to be congratulated for facing it." Agreed David Roderick, president of U.S. Steel: "He has laid it all on the line. Our industries, our jobs, our American way of life could be in jeopardy." After listening to Carter's Monday "sky is falling" speech, North Carolina's Democratic Governor James B. Hunt Jr. observed: "If anyone has any doubts of a crisis, they must be blind and deaf. That was the most carefully reasoned statement of an immense problem that I've ever heard."

That in no way meant the nation was united in believing that Carter's prescribed means of dealing with the problem is the only--or even the best--way. From ideologues on the Republican right came the charge that Carter's multifaceted program went too far. Insisted Martin

Anderson, a Hoover Institute researcher and former political adviser to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan: "The Carter plan represents massive Government intervention in the energy economy. It will lead to more shortages and higher prices, more inflation and a depressed economy."

Aware that they could easily be used by Carter as foils in his drive to persuade the public to accept his program, most leaders of the oil and auto industries deliberately withheld their public fire--and ire. Said Frank Ikard, president of the American Petroleum Institute: "No segment of society is going to have everything its own way. But it would be tragic if strident divisiveness prevented the creation of a meaningful policy." Yet from Houston's Petroleum Club to Detroit's Athletic Club, leaders of the most affected industries were fuming.

"It is a damn lie to suggest that there isn't enough competition in the oil business," charged Union Oil Chairman and President Fred Hartley in response to Carter's claim that there was not. While praising the thrust of Carter's energy alarm, General Motors Chairman Thomas Murphy protested that some of the President's Washington-oriented advisers, far more than Carter, "are influenced by their own life-styles and they don't understand the dimension of the American public." A less biased criticism of Carter's plan was that its measures were far milder than those suggested by the apocalyptic terms in which he couched the crisis in his Monday-night address to the people, and that their mildness would neither rally the country nor solve the energy dilemma. After asking Americans to wage "the moral equivalent of war" in meeting "the greatest challenge that our country will face during our lifetime," Carter put forward proposals that were hardly draconian. (Humorist Russell Baker observed that the acronym for moral equivalent of war is MEOW.) Indeed, if the financial discomfiture was to be as minimal as the Administration was claiming at week's end, the essential changes for Americans would be ones of habit and life-style--but those could prove more painful than dollar losses.

In general, Carter would let domestic oil prices rise to world levels, increase prices of newly discovered natural gas by 20% (to approach oil prices), slap a 5-c--per-gal. tax on gasoline each year if conservation goals were not met, and use tax penalties on "gas guzzler" cars and rebates on small cars to encourage purchasers to select energy-efficient autos. To many liberals, this was not going far enough. "Large Chevy owners will now have to switch to small Chevies. I don't consider this a sacrifice," said Tom Quinn, special assistant on environmental protection to California Governor Jerry Brown.

Carter's dilemma was that any comprehensive approach to energy consumption and production had to contain specific proposals repugnant to many groups. On energy, indeed, all Americans belong to one or more special or sectional interests, depending upon their personal transportation, heating, and vocational or leisure habits. Carter's program faced the danger of being sliced to death even by those in sympathy with its broad goals. It would have been politically hard, if not impossible, for Carter to demand more severe sacrifices by everybody when Congress might not even pass a package requiring small sacrifices. The proposals, after all, most immediately affect powerful lobbies to which Congress has long listened attentively.

Methodically and skillfully, the President went about his task last week. He first explained the urgency of the energy shortage to the nation in an earnest televised talk from the Oval Office, then revealed what he intended to do about it in another prime-time address to Congress, and finally gave reporters a chance to pick his plan apart at a televised press conference. (Asked at the press conference if all this did not amount to overkill, Carter confessed: "There is a danger of overexposure. But this has been an extraordinary week.")

Seated at his most formal White House desk, Carter was serious and effective Monday night in delineating the dimensions of the impending energy shortage. Although his words were, as always, delivered in soft Southern tones, they were blunt and stark. If the world's use of oil continues at present rates, he predicted, demand will exceed international production by the early 1980s. Just to stay even would require "the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months or a new Saudi Arabia every three years."

Carter called the U.S. "the most wasteful nation on earth," adding: "We waste more energy than we import." Claiming that "we can't substantially increase our domestic production," Carter said the U.S. will become perilously dependent on increasingly costly imported oil. "We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs," and we would "constantly live in fear of embargoes." There would be pressure "to plunder the environment" in a crash program to expand nuclear plants, strip mining and the drilling of offshore wells. Regions within the U.S. would compete with each other for supplies. "Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs."

In Carter's view, the U.S. must conserve if it hopes to leave "a decent world for our children and our grandchildren." He said the sacrifices he would ask of Americans "will be painful" but also "gradual, realistic--and, above all, fair." Well aware of the difficulties in getting his program through Congress, he predicted special-interest groups would proclaim "sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it." Pointedly looking beyond Congress, Carter predicted that the fate of his plan "will not be decided here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home and on every highway and every farm."

After that alarming call to action, a packed House chamber on Wednesday night expectantly awaited the details of Carter's plan, even though most had been leaked in advance and congressional leaders had been briefed. There was a moment of apt happenstance at precisely 9 p.m., when the chamber's great center door opened and, instead of the President, a confused and disheveled James Schlesinger entered the hall. Obviously tardy, the energy adviser, who was directly responsible for putting the massive plan together in just 90 days, had to be directed to his front-row seat.

Shunning any rhetorical flourishes to dramatize his plan, Carter rushed through its main proposals in low-key style, putting a number of members of Congress to sleep. The multiple facts and figures were somewhat numbing. The delivery was smooth and nearly faultless (he twice said "miles per hour" when he meant "miles per gallon") but far short of inspiring. Making his energy program work, Carter said, "will demand the best of us, our vision, our dedication, our courage and our sense of common purpose." The President told his audience he expected little applause--and he was not disappointed. He was interrupted, however, when he took a poke at the oil companies, declaring: "I happen to believe in competition, and we don't have enough of it right now." He held out the threat of divestiture--a bull-baiting word among the big oil companies--if data he sought from the companies showed that antitrust laws were being flouted.

Beyond the rather modest sacrifices Carter asked of most individuals, his program offered some incentives for saving fuel. Both homeowners and businesses could receive tax credits for installing insulation, storm windows and weather stripping in their buildings. Homeowners also would be encouraged through tax credits to install solar equipment.

Overall, the package seemed well designed to wend its way past the broadest political hazards. It appeases some conservatives by letting oil and gas prices rise--but does not offend liberals by removing controls completely or allowing the producers to reap higher profits. It encourages coal production and conversion, as well as a speedier expansion of nuclear power plants, without lifting environmental safeguards.

Perhaps most important for its prospects of success, Carter's program would not drastically alter the life-styles of most Americans. There would be a significant shift toward smaller, lighter cars (although many cars designed to meet the gradually increasing gasoline-efficiency standards, and thus avoid a tax penalty, could readily seat six people), but that trend has already begun. People on limited incomes might well have to plan shopping trips more carefully and curtail nonessential driving. Teen-agers in middle-income families might have to bicycle to school instead of driving their own cars.

By Friday morning's press conference Carter was easily able to defend his program against the generally uncritical questions of reporters. The President spun off his statistics and conservation "principles" with assurance. He stoutly defended his stand-by gasoline tax, as he must at so early a moment in a long debate, declaring: "I will fight for it till the last vote in Congress." Notably, he held out the possibility of gasoline rationing as "a viable alternative" if his program fell short of its goals. He pointed out that he had the power to impose rationing without congressional approval by declaring a national emergency.

The new President, who had won election by a bare majority and was only three months in office, had staked his popularity and the reputation of his young Administration on his energy package. Most members of Congress, wary of public reaction, were content to let Carter take the lead on the issue, but some Democratic Senators voiced approval. Observed Lloyd Bentsen of Texas: "The President is doing what has to be done. He has proposed a broad national energy policy. It should be given a fair hearing, not nibbled to death."

Democratic leaders were loyally closing behind the President, even though they believe, as one phrased it, that passing the package will be "a bitch." Said Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd: "The solution requires the best that is in us. This is a supreme test and it requires a supreme effort. Yet I think there's a reservoir of courage and strength and patriotism here that will respond." House Democratic Leader Tip O'Neill readily concurred, declaring that passage of the President's package will involve "the toughest fight this Congress has ever had."

Most Republicans withheld comment this soon in the legislative battle. A few indicated that the fight would not be completely partisan. Declared Illinois Senator Charles Percy: "It's the greatest challenge any peacetime President ever gave the nation, and I don't think it's going to be as unpopular as the President says. He's in line with the underlying thinking of the people. The country wants leadership." Democratic Congressman Morris Udall likened some of the protest to imaginary congressional reaction on the day after Pearl Harbor: "You interviewed the Congressman from Detroit and he said, 'The Japanese attack was outrageous, but before we rush into war, let's see how it would affect the automobile industry.' And then somebody else said, 'It was dastardly, but consider the effect on oil,' and another Congressman said, 'War could be very serious for recreation and tourism.' "

Percy may be right: people throughout the nation may be ahead of Congress in their willingness to put personal interests aside for the larger good. A special ABC News/Harris poll taken after Wednesday's address showed that Carter's popular approval had actually risen by 3%, to 69%, since he revealed his energy program, instead of falling by the 10% to 15% he had predicted. An impressive 86% agreed with him that the energy shortage was serious. By margins ranging from 2 to 1 up to 8 to 1, Americans supported most provisions of his plan. Most favored, by 85%, was the tax credit for insulating homes. But there were exceptions. The standby gasoline tax was opposed by 54% to 39%. A worrisome 62% of Americans did not feel that the plan provided for a true "equality of sacrifice," mainly because people felt it would have a more severe effect on the poor.

Surveying the nation, TIME correspondents found that those 1973 gasoline lines forced by the Arab boycott, and the plant and school closings caused by natural-gas shortages last winter, had not receded as far in public memory as many skeptics had thought. The support for Carter's crisis-mood approach cut broadly across partisan and regional lines. A surprisingly prevalent refrain was: "I'm all for it, but most other people won't go for it, and Congress will kill it."

Sentiment for the program is stronger in New England, whose frugal Yankees depend heavily on imported oil to survive harsh winters. "Most of the things Carter's mentioned, we're already doing," claimed Robert Hamm, owner of a small machine shop in Boston. "Why would you burn a fleet of lights and put up with a huge electric bill for nothing?"

On the West Coast, cars are especially vital. But the onrush of newcomers, especially in California, has raised environmental worries and brought new sympathy for conservation. There may be more resistance to sweeping energy saving in the Midwest, where farms grow on gas and the auto industry looms large, and in the South, where cold is rarely a concern and tourism means money. Yet even in fuel-rich Texas, presumably set in its freewheeling ways, local Pollster John Staples found after Carter's presentation that more people approved his energy approach than opposed it. Nearly half said they would buy a smaller car if the price of gasoline were to rise from its present 550 per gal. to 750.

Whatever the region, TIME found spirited answers to the questions Carter's program has posed.

First, are Americans willing to sacrifice? "Carter said it best when he said we'll never be able to live the same again," says Robert Chess, a machine repairman of Clackamas, Ore. "I'm going to have to change my life-style." Paula Johnson, a suburban Atlanta housewife, has already moved her mother to a nursing home closer to her house, shifted to a smaller car and begun insulating her home. "I'm quite willing to cut down my heat," says Philadelphia Personnel Manager June Rosato. "Shivering a little is the least I can do for my country."

Some who are skeptical about how much sacrifice is necessary are nevertheless willing to make personal decisions that, if multiplied by millions, would create the shifts Carter's plan seeks. Vance Nimrod of Greenville, Miss., does not intend to get rid of his current Cadillac, but vows: "I'll never buy another one." Richard Otis, a bricklayer in Memphis, had been thinking about buying a Lincoln Continental, but is now looking at smaller cars. Even without the possibility of increased oil-heating costs, Patty Hotchkiss, a town board member in Bedford, N.Y., is looking for a small, well-insulated house to replace her large, drafty one. But she didn't need Carter to inspire the move; her oil bill for January was $1,060.

Yet there are many Americans who either cannot or will not alter their car-driving habits, suggesting that the cost of gasoline will not, alone, much reduce consumption. "My driving is out of necessity," says Diana Brown, a Portland, Ore., bookkeeper and secretary. "My reasons aren't going to change just because it costs me a nickel a gallon more to get there."

Is Carter's program fair? Most Americans seem uncertain -- dubious. Many wonder whether their own sacrifice might simply be negated by the neighbor who fails to follow suit. A common complaint is that of Rita Gibson, a Boston delicatessen owner: "The guys with money will still be able to afford as much gas as they want. Only the little guys will suffer." Asks Peggy Matthews, a New York public relations executive: "Why should some poor apartment dweller sit and shiver when all the office buildings in Manhattan are shining brightly all night long?" Contends Werner Uebersax, a Catonsville (Md.) College professor, who would prefer gas rationing: "What happens when you raise taxes is that the rich aren't affected, the poor are subsidized one way or another --and guess who gets it in the neck?"

Though surprisingly subdued so far, regionalism is an obstacle of unknown seriousness to the Carter program. Protests Pat Wakefield, mayor of Hunter's Creek, an affluent Houston suburb: "There's nothing fair about controlled gas prices at the same time as those people in the East and North are refusing to permit drilling in their states for gas and oil."

Finally, what are the implications for the technological society? Carter likened the present need for energy conservation to earlier shifts from burning wood to coal, then later from coal to oil and natural gas. Columbia University Historian Henry Graff sees the current crisis more grandly, calling it "the Pearl Harbor of the Industrial Revolution." He is not certain that Americans, more than people anywhere else, are ready to meet the challenge. "Heroic periods are easier to read about than to live through," he notes.

In Graffs gloomy view, "Man is by nature a predatory animal--he uses what's available." He contends that waste has been built into the values of an ever-expanding American economy. In the past, technology provided answers for the problems it created. Now Graff fears that there may be no wondrous new energy source when the old forms run out.

Carter, a politician with the problem-solving mind of an engineer, is confident that any such pessimistic view is wrong. To doubt that new technological breakthroughs are ahead is essentially a failure of the imagination. Biologist Barry Commoner is one of many scientists who believe that new energy sources will be developed. Even now, he claims, "solar energy could reduce our energy budget by 20%."

Indeed, Carter's whole energy plan is designed as a way of reaching that future age of new energy sources without setting, nation against nation--and regions within the U.S. against each other. Whatever the uncertainties along the path Carter is blazing, not to set out at all would be the least rational of all alternatives.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.