Lethal Trajectories - Michael Conley [130]
“You’ve got my undivided attention, Peter, please continue.”
“Here’s the plan, Mr. President: We are proposing an oil-rationing plan that will impact all sectors of the economy, but some more than others. In essence, it will involve cutting back by 11 percent from current consumption levels on all aviation jet fuel, distillates used for diesels and trucking, and liquefied gas and pentane fuels. The plan calls for a reduction of 21 percent in oil used for lubricants, industrial purposes, etc., and here’s the big one—it will require a 34 percent reduction in motor fuel for private use.”
“Ouch, Peter! Isn’t there some way we can take a bigger bite out of other sectors and save a little more for private usage?”
“Yes, Mr. President, everything’s on the table. But let me explain our dilemma: almost a half of our total fuel consumption—roughly 8.2 million barrels out of the 17 million barrels we use daily—is used for cars, light trucks, and motorcycles. By comparison, distillate usage is about 3.35 million barrels and jet fuel about 1.25 million barrels. Any cuts to the reduction rates for cars, with their larger base rates of consumption, would require disproportionately higher cuts from distillates and jet fuels, with their lower base numbers. Fuel reductions for cars will cause consumers pain, but further reductions in aviation and distillate fuels would have a devastating effect on the entire economy.”
Clayton nodded and said, “I buy that logic, but what would a 34 percent reduction mean to the average driver?”
“Mathematically speaking, Mr. President, it means decreasing our consumption of gasoline from 343 million gallons per day to 226 million gallons. That’s a decrease of 117 million gallons. Now, if you figure there are 235 million drivers in America, and you divide the gallons of gas available by number of drivers, the per-capita average would decrease from 1.46 gallons per day per driver to about 1.00 gallon per day, or seven gallons per week. If a car got 30 miles per gallon, the new ration would give the driver 210 miles of driving per week.”
Peter continued as the president scribbled down numbers.
“While this is, in principle, a fair and equitable way to address the challenge, it will put a severe hardship on rural residents, resort owners, and others relying on drive-in business. For city dwellers with access to public transit and recourse to alternate forms of transportation like bikes, it’s far less of a sacrifice. It will spell an end to family road trips and the sense of mobility so deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Changing the expectations and behaviors of the American people will probably be our greatest challenge.”
“I suppose we could work out some system of credits for hardship cases, but I get your point,” Clayton replied, pondering the political ramifications.
“There are a number of things we can do, Mr. President, and we should be able to work out a system of rationing credits, much as we did in World War II. Clearly, the airlines will suffer, as will collateral businesses feeding off business and vacation travelers. The trucking industry will get clobbered; others, like the railroads or public transit systems, will benefit.”
It was a lot to digest, but Clayton appreciated Peter’s logical approach. “How would you propose administering the rationing system?”
“The concept of rationing is not new to Americans. During World War II we rationed gas, oil, tires, sugar, meats, coffee, and what have you. It was implemented in a hurry, and typically involved using rationing stamps as de facto currency. There was, of course, a black market, and people found ways to game the system, but overall it worked remarkably well.”
“It’s amazing what Americans were able to do when faced with a challenge of this magnitude, wasn’t it, Peter?”
“It was indeed, Mr. President, and maybe that’s one of the reasons we call them the Greatest Generation. Today, of course, we have the technology to build a much better apparatus for implementing