Obama’s new energy chief on energy efficiency

by | Dec 11, 2008


Steven Chu – Nobel prize laureate in Physics – is Obama’s new energy secretary. He’s freaked out by climate change, and believes that energy efficiency should be a key part of our response.

I cannot impress upon you how important energy efficiency is… Buildings can be incredibly more efficient…We feel that buildings can be better than a factor of two energy efficient, more like a factor of four to five energy efficient, and pay for itself in less than fifteen years.

If Chu can do anything significant on energy efficiency while in post, it will be a big deal. Have a look at the McKinsey cost curve where huge emissions cuts are available ‘below the line’ – in otherwords, cuts that should more than pay for themselves.

These cuts can be found across all sectors (residential, 26%; commercial, 10%; industrial, 39%; energy transformation, 16%; and transport, 10%) and reveal a rat’s nest of market failures. Many – though important in aggregate – are simply “too small to be a priority” for individual consumers and businesses.

This is not a techical problem, though Chu likes those too. (He predicts plunges in the cost of solar and is a booster for second generation biofuels, though not ethanol – “good stuff, but I’d rather drink it”.)

To make any progress, he’s going to have to get to grips with the human drivers that are the most neglected part of our response to climate change (think: behaviour, organisations, incentives, institutions – and on the latter, read Douglass North’s classic Nobel Prize speech).

This is a huge challenge, especially for a fusty government bureacracy (and maybe also the Nobel prize winning tech-head who will now lead it). Chu is therefore going to need outside help. He should be looking to pull together a dream team of people who know about people (economists, psychologists, political scientists, marketeers etc) – and ask them to build a model that will influence not just the US, but the rest of the world as well.

He’ll then need to work hard to build political consensus for a raft of regulatory and legal changes – with the aim of applying the right mix of price signals, subsidies, and new regulations to the problem. Then he’ll need to maintain public support as he attempts to reengineer the way both businesses and individuals operate.

Can it be done? Given how little progress we’re making on emissions, I don’t see there’s any choice. My fear, of course, is that we’ll just pile a heap of policy failures on top of the existing market failures. Let’s hope Chu sets out some stretching metrics – and keeps coming back to whether they’ve been achieved.

Author

  • David Steven is a senior fellow at the UN Foundation and at New York University, where he founded the Global Partnership to End Violence against Children and the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies, a multi-stakeholder partnership to deliver the SDG targets for preventing all forms of violence, strengthening governance, and promoting justice and inclusion. He was lead author for the ministerial Task Force on Justice for All and senior external adviser for the UN-World Bank flagship study on prevention, Pathways for Peace. He is a former senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of The Risk Pivot: Great Powers, International Security, and the Energy Revolution (Brookings Institution Press, 2014). In 2001, he helped develop and launch the UK’s network of climate diplomats. David lives in and works from Pisa, Italy.


More from Global Dashboard

Let’s make climate a culture war!

Let’s make climate a culture war!

If the politics of climate change end up polarised, is that so bad?  No – it’s disastrous. Or so I’ve long thought. Look at the US – where climate is even more polarised than abortion. Result: decades of flip flopping. Ambition under Clinton; reversal...