After Gutenberg

In commentary to the Climate Progress blog, this blog heckled Professor Romm anticipating the appointment of Nobel Laureate Steven Chu to the post of secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.

According to Joe, Chu (at the time “would be”, now is) a great choice because he “definitely gets the urgent need to act on global warming.” Referring to a previous Climate Progress report, (Energy efficiency, Part 5: The highest documented rate of return of any federal program) Joseph Romm further stresses the wisdom of the Chu choice:

DOE oversees all of the national laboratories and many of the major physics labs. Chu not only has experience running a major federal science lab, the lab he runs is actually responsible for developing the technologies that have paid for all the clean energy research the tax payers have ever supported.

After a read of the Rombo endorsement, something niggled at some of my memory cells. A quick search of AG archives produced one Chu hit (sigh, at least allow me to have fun with his name, Jo-Jo), to wit, as LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) director, Chu recently accepted a $500 million grant from British Petroleum to develop biofuels from “alternative” sources.

JR replied that he really would not lose a lot of sleep over such a connection and there ensued some very gentlemanly verbal sparring over the intent of the funding. I felt moved to respond to the assumption that having a Nobel Laureate in the position was, de facto, a good thing.

While not a Nobel Laureate, Bush’s sycophant Johnson was a scientist.

Okefenokee, JR, Bama won. Thank the FSM! And, there is a member of the cabinet of Asian ancestry, excellent!

OTOH, follow pretzel logic, plz.

• Millions of gallons leaking from oil sands tailings ponds daily.
• BP is in the oil sands.
• BP uses Fischer-Tropsch.
• The EPA (Business Protection Agency) is part of DoE.
• DoE does Next Gen.
• Vat Chu Vant sez there’s more to l-earn about alternative energy.

Q.E.D.*, we are farked.

* Which I think is Latin for “Git outta dee road, Tar Sand Biatch.”

To which, JR quipped, “You are jumping the shark here, analogizing Chu with Johnson. Mellow out!” Hm, definitely hit a nerve there, Doktor Wittgenstein. Coincidentally, there was word of the selection of Steven Chu as DoE mandarin and recognition in the media that Chu sees coal as his worst nightmare.

So, some deep breaths later and smiling only enough to know that I am smiling (a favorite meditation), I reflected upon the error of my ways, which is a good thing because some AG reader might get the previous Pogo reference, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

In critiquing the appointment, this blog committed one or more of the following errors:

• 1) Corruption – Picking winners if done non-transparently and without full attention to democratic principles can lead to and/or be the product of corruption. Picking winners involves collaboration between government and industries or professions that can shade into collusion if not pursued in a deliberate fashion with full public justification. Bribes in various direct and indirect forms can influence the selection process.
• 2) “False” Winners – Picking winners can lead to a self-justifying selection of a technology or system that ends up being of lower quality and service than another option. Corn ethanol, with only hope and little scientific justification, became a false winner.
• 3) Economic Inefficiency – As per “2”, the government or other authority that is vested with the power to pick the winner could pick a technology or system without regard for the ultimate costs of implementing that technology. Government officials may have no mechanisms that hold them responsible for cost overruns or other inefficiencies. The potential for inefficiency may need to be balanced against the desirability of the goal.
• 4) Lack of Accountability – related to “1” and “3”, the selection of winners may occur in ways in which those who make the decisions do not experience the effects of those decisions. Government officials, representing the people of the US, may not be able to be held individually responsible in some circumstances.
• 5) Foreclosure of future technological developments – picking a winner can narrow the market opening or close it entirely for an emerging or future technology that may turn out to be superior. Monopolistic or oligopolistic control of markets can have the same effect.
• 6) Decision-making without scientific backing – A winning technology or system may be selected without access to or utilization of the best scientific knowledge available; as we shall see below the success of “picking winners” is heavily dependent on high quality science.
• 7) Decision-making without Socratic wisdom – Decision makers may feel empowered without knowing what they don’t know. Without knowing where and to what degree they are ignorant allows decisions to be made that may ultimately be short-sighted.
• Arrogant self-justification – in a further development of “7” decision makers may attribute to themselves the cloak of infallibility or may downgrade the wisdom and perspective of those who are outside their coterie. These attitudes may spring from the privilege of being able to make crucial decisions in combination with a wealth of information and resources at their disposal.
• 9) Economic and Political Despotism – the worst case scenario upon which much criticism of state-led policies are based, is that “picking winners” is the leading edge of authoritarianism. Despite the tendency recently in our politics to dwell on this worst outcome, government initiative in the economy does not NECESSARILY lead to despotism as we have seen with the New Deal, WWII mobilization, the Marshall Plan, the Interstate Highway System, etc.

Michael Hoexter identified these errors in an essay entitled “Picking Winners“.

In addition to arrogant self-justification and jealousy, where I see the greatest failure in my critique is looking through one lens and believing I have seen and can comprehend entirely what is at issue. So what?

Is Steven Chu an excellent choice? Yes, especially after he changed his study from quantum physics to global warming research.

So what is the issue? Well, it bears repeating that, in terms of energy and environmental policy — both which come under the purview of the DoE secretary — we need to forgo an arrogant posture that says we are the leaders. Where we now are leading is per capita GHG. Time to strip off those foam “We’re #1″ accoutrement, oui? In the words of Stewart Udall, “We have, I fear, confused power with greatness.” In the case of Chu, it would seem to be nuclear power, observes Karl Grossman.

HuffPo suggests more info at

• Steven Chu‘s page from the U.S. Department of Energy Berkeley Lab page, and
• Steven Chu on Wikipedia.