This past summer, Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who currently heads Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory--and who has been tapped to be the next Secretary of Energy--delivered a talk on climate change and how to combat it. Consider, Chu said, the refrigerator.
Refrigerators consume a lot of energy; all alone, they account for almost fifteen per cent of the average home's electricity use. In the mid nineteen-seventies, California--the state Chu now lives in--set about establishing the country's first refrigerator-efficiency standards. Refrigerator manufacturers, of course, fought them. The standards couldn't be met, they said, at anything like a price consumers could afford. California imposed the standards anyway, and then what happened, as Chu observed, is that "the manufacturers had to assign the job to the engineers, instead of to the lobbyists." The following decade, standards were imposed for refrigerators nationwide. Since then, the size of the average American refrigerator has increased by more than ten per cent, while the price, in inflation-adjusted dollars, has been cut in half. Meanwhile, energy use has dropped by two-thirds.
The transition to more efficient fridges, Chu pointed out, has saved the equivalent of all the energy generated in the United States by wind turbines and solar cells. "I cannot impress upon you how important energy efficiency is," he said.
This is a classic example of how government can use regulation to empower citizens to collective solve problems that they could never tackle on their own. It's also a powerful example of how the scientific claims of industry are often wholly unsubstantiated. They said that the new standards couldn't be met at a price consumers could afford, but once they were imposed, the size of refrigerators grew, their efficiency skyrocketed, and their price fell by half.
Policies that protect the environment and save energy are not either/or propositions. We can save money and energy at the same time. Never ever underestimate the power of the market to innovate if the incentives are correctly aligned.
And while we're on the subject... Obama's weekly radio/YouTube address hits on that very subject today:
Whether it's the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs - today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It's time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology.
I'm a geek at heart - always have been, always will be. It makes me happy beyond words to have a fellow geek in the White House, one who is actually excited to surround himself with physicists, geneticists, biochemists, marine biologists, and ecologists.
Facts aren't just stubborn things, they are also nonpartisan things. Reality is what it is. For the first time in my lifetime, we will have a President of the United States who actually understands that.
Here's the text of Obama's address for those who can't watch the video:
Whether it's the science to slow global warming; the technology to protect our troops and confront bioterror and weapons of mass destruction; the research to find life-saving cures; or the innovations to remake our industries and create twenty-first century jobs--today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It is time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America's place as the world leader in science and technology.
Right now, in labs, classrooms and companies across America, our leading minds are hard at work chasing the next big idea, on the cusp of breakthroughs that could revolutionize our lives. But history tells us that they cannot do it alone. From landing on the moon, to sequencing the human genome, to inventing the Internet, America has been the first to cross that new frontier because we had leaders who paved the way: leaders like President Kennedy, who inspired us to push the boundaries of the known world and achieve the impossible; leaders who not only invested in our scientists, but who respected the integrity of the scientific process.
Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient--especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States--and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.
Dr. John Holdren has agreed to serve as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. John is a professor and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as well as President and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. A physicist renowned for his work on climate and energy, he's received numerous honors and awards for his contributions and has been one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change. I look forward to his wise counsel in the years ahead.
John will also serve as a Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology--or PCAST--as will Dr. Harold Varmus and Dr. Eric Lander. Together, they will work to remake PCAST into a vigorous external advisory council that will shape my thinking on the scientific aspects of my policy priorities.
Dr. Varmus is no stranger to this work. He is not just a path-breaking scientist, having won a Nobel Prize for his research on the causes of cancer--he also served as Director of the National Institutes of Health during the Clinton Administration. I am grateful he has answered the call to serve once again.
Dr. Eric Lander is the Founding Director of the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard and was one of the driving forces behind mapping the human genome--one of the greatest scientific achievements in history. I know he will be a powerful voice in my Administration as we seek to find the causes and cures of our most devastating diseases.
Finally, Dr. Jane Lubchenco has accepted my nomination as the Administrator of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is devoted to conserving our marine and coastal resources and monitoring our weather. An internationally known environmental scientist and ecologist and former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jane has advised the President and Congress on scientific matters, and I am confident she will provide passionate and dedicated leadership at NOAA.
Working with these leaders, we will seek to draw on the power of science to both meet our challenges across the globe and revitalize our economy here at home. And I'll be speaking more after the New Year about how my Administration will engage leaders in the technology community and harness technology and innovation to create jobs, enhance America's competitiveness and advance our national priorities.
I am confident that if we recommit ourselves to discovery; if we support science education to create the next generation of scientists and engineers right here in America; if we have the vision to believe and invest in things unseen, then we can lead the world into a new future of peace and prosperity.
"My administration will value science," Obama said, in what sounded like a pointed reference to his predecessor. "We will make decisions based on facts."
Reuters is reporting, and this column can confirm, that President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Nobel laureate Steven Chu to be his Secretary of Energy. If nominated, a real rocket scientist would be in charge of the energy portfolio -- imagine that. I believe that he'd be the first scientist to head a major executive branch department since the 1970s. And he's sort of two scientists in one, trained as a molecular biochemist and as a physicist, comfortable writing papers about RNA transcription and Bose-Einstein condensates. Dr. Chu is untainted by Washington's caution on climate change, which thrills energy transformation advocates. Speaking of collective excitation of condensed groups, the left loves him. (Chris Bowers does, at least.) Obama also plans to appoint Clinton era EPA secretary Carol Browner to a White House staff coordination post, Lisa Jackson of New Jersey to be his EPA head (who knows more about environmental degradation that someone from New Jersey) and Nancy Sutley of California to be his CEQ director. Thursday, Obama plans to formalize the nomination announcement of Tom Daschle to be secretary of Health and Human Services.
ThinkProgress has a great overview of the guy here.
And here's the man himself explaining our energy and environmental problems in less than 10 minutes:
Be sure to watch the bit around the 4 to 6 minutes mark. His argument about the difference between what lobbyists think is possible and what engineers and scientists know is possible is absolutely essential.
This is a seriously bold pick. And a seriously progressive pick. A Nobel Prize-winning physicist who currently directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California will be our Secretary of Energy.
After completing my last post on BPA, here's the next item in my feed reader. McClatchy:
The U.S. can reduce its dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse-gas emissions by making cars and buildings much more energy efficient, according to a study released Tuesday by a large national association of physicists.
The 46,000-member American Physical Society argues the need for action is urgent because the energy crisis is the worst in U.S. history. It also says that the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change -- such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels -- is "well understood and beyond dispute."
The report argues that the country can still go a long way to reduce energy use in cost-effective ways that allow for continued comfort and convenience. It recommends that the federal government adopt policies and make investments to encourage the adoption of energy saving technologies.
"The opportunities are huge and the costs are small," the report said.
"The bottom line is that the quickest way to do something about America's use of energy is through energy efficiency," said Burton Richter, the chairman of the study panel and a 1976 Nobel Prize winner in physics. "Energy that you don't use is free. It's not imported and it doesn't emit any greenhouse gases. Most of the things we recommend don't cost anything to the economy. The economy will save money."
The report concludes that the projected growth of energy use in buildings -- 30 percent by 2030 -- could be cut to zero using existing technology and what's likely to become available in the next decade at the current level of research and development. It argues that the federal government should encourage states to set standards for residential buildings and make sure they're enforced.
"One of the things we would love to see is all buildings have Energy Star labels," Richter said. "Right now you don't know how much energy a building is going to use that you're interested in moving into. We'd like to see an energy audit required before a building is sold or even built."
Some of the report's suggestions included installing roofs that reflect rather than absorb the sun's energy in hot climates, more efficient heating, cooling, lighting and appliances, and more government investment in research and development in building technologies.
Consumers would have to pay to install the technology, but they would save money in the long run, the report said.
On transportation, a key recommendation is more federal government investment in developing cheaper and more reliable batteries for electric cars.
"If you look at magically converting the whole fleet to plug-in hybrids" that get 40 miles per charge, greenhouse gases would be reduced by 33 percent and gasoline use by 60 percent, Richter said.
That would be the equivalent of cutting oil imports by 6 million barrels a day, Richter said. That's the amount the U.S. imports from OPEC (largely from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Nigeria), out of a total of about 13.5 million barrels imported a day from all countries.
the part I've placed in bold above is another perfect example of a place where smart regulation could actually dramatically improve our nation's economic efficiency. Right now, as a consumer, its almost impossible to get information about the energy efficiency of a building. If we were to change that, building owners and managers would have multiple incentives to improve efficiency. Not only would it save them money in the long run, but it might actually help them attract new business in the short run. Put those two together and you will have created a tipping point for many businesses, prompting them to improve efficiencies where they otherwise would not.
Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.
Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent.
Remember now that this is her supposed area of expertise, the one "credential that she brings to the table." Are you kidding?
"Drill, baby, drill" takes on a whole new meaning here:
As Congress prepares to debate expansion of drilling in taxpayer-owned coastal waters, the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal -- including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use and sexual misconduct.
In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department's inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government's largest sources of revenue other than taxes.
"A culture of ethical failure" besets the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo.
The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration's watch.
The highest-ranking official criticized in the reports was Lucy Q. Denett, the former associate director of minerals revenue management, who retired earlier this year as the inquiry was progressing.
The investigations are the latest installment in a series of scathing probes of the troubled program's management and competence in recent years. While previous reports have focused on problems the agency has had in collecting millions of dollars owed to the Treasury, the new set of reports raises questions about the integrity and behavior of the agency's officials.
In one of the new reports, investigators conclude that a key supervisor at the agency's minerals revenue management office worked together with two aides to steer a lucrative consulting contract to one of the aides after he retired, violating competitive procurement rules.
Two other reports focus on "a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" and unethical behavior in the service's royalty-in-kind program. That part of the agency collects about $4 billion a year in the form of oil and gas rather than cash royalties.
Modeled on a private-sector energy company, the decade-old royalty-in-kind program transports, processes and resells the oil and gas on the open market. But while its officials interact with energy company executives, they are subject to government ethics rules, such as restrictions on taking gifts from sources with whom they conduct official business.
One of the reports says that the officials viewed themselves as exempt from those limits, indulging themselves in the expense-account-fueled world of oil and gas executives.
In addition, the report alleges that eight royalty-program officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules -- including golf, ski and paintball outings; meals and drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game and a Colorado Rockies baseball game.
The investigation also concluded that several of the officials "frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives."
The investigation separately found that the program's manager mixed official and personal business, and took money from a technical services firm in exchange for urging oil companies to hire the firm. In sometimes lurid detail, the report accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine.
The culture of the organization "appeared to be devoid of both the ethical standards and internal controls sufficient to protect the integrity of this vital revenue-producing program," one report said.
