Achieving Energy Efficiency Goals: Who Has the Responsibility?

Early this week, leaders from fifteen countries met to talk about international energy efficiency goals.

You would be forgiven for not noticing.  After all, if Obama himself isn't present, there doesn't seem to be much media interest--much less when the representative is Assistant Secretary Cathy Zoi of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--someone most people have never heard of. 

Let me be clear.  I applaud the cooperation and effort to coordinate funding and initiative behind specific projects to increase energy efficiency across the globe.  And frankly, efficiency is the low-hanging fruit that one would hope every country could get behind.  But the fact is, how much can these meetings truly accomplish?

After all, the inherent irony in a meeting to hammer out energy efficiency goals is that they tend to lead to results very inefficiently.  It requires a lot of flash and heat for muddied, imperfect, and sometimes non-existent results.  That is the nature and necessity of diplomatic and cooperative political action.  Again, it's admirable and, to some extent, necessary to go through these efforts.  But let's not get distracted. 

It's like Julie Urlaub from Taiga Company mentioned in our discussion of sustainability: we're all waiting for governments to come in from the top down to "fix" everything, when the real change is waiting to happen in each individual and business. 

After all, this is America.  Sure, governments can enact stricter building codes or offer incentives for good behavior, but at the end of the day, we own those homes and businesses that are using this energy--and it is up to us to make things better.



Revolution Part II: The Politics of Sustainability

In part one of this series I mentioned the notion that what we need is a paradigm shift in our culture. When we look at our needs for water, food, energy and land in the next century, "small ball" movements will not get us there. We have to reassess the value of these resources in economic terms and bring those terms to market. Politically that can mean cap and trade. But the private sector needs to enact this change in thought now and there are several industries which can act as a catalyst for larger systemic change.

The thing is...selling those who are passionate about sustainability and environmentalism isn't enough. We need to engage those outside of that market and embrace the broader population. When we think of the nation's avatars for sustainability, ex Democratic politicians spring to mind. People like Al Gore and President Carter have fought throughout their ex-White House careers to stop global warming. While the natural instinct is to turn these men, Al Gore in particular, into the face of environmental change-the model is fundamentally flawed. Al Gore represents a political figure not to be trusted by 49% of Americans. In a deeply polarized nation we would do well not to imbue the fight for sustainability with politics but rather common sense. The nation simply cannot rest the hopes for sustainability on the backs of the Democratic party. The weight of day-to-day governance will burden them down, and the nature of our politics is give and take. It's deal making and when it comes to our energy crisis and the threats of global climate change. Compromise simply won't do.

Progress toward sustainability will be acheived when the business community recognizes the value in it. While many companies already are, many have failed to see how their business can be made more sustainable. That's where the business case for sustainability becomes so important. Whether you're a treehugger or not, we can all agree with saving money. Finding the business case for alternative energy, alternative transportation, or sustainable renovation is in all of our grasp. It's time to take the concepts of sustainbility and fuse them into American industry. I believe the building industry can lead the way. Sustainabilty cannot be seen as a cost... but rather an investment. It needs to be seen as buying a future. No where is that more apparent than the built space. But it's not simply enough to outline the economic benefits of sustainable building or in our case, sustainable renovation. We need to bring this concept to people's daily lives in a way that is valuable and tangible. Getting people to actively think about the spaces they occupy everyday outside of their homes. Solid capitalism thrives on effeiciency. Yet when it comes to energy and natural resources we allow our businesses to fall behind. In the race against China and India for the economy of tomorrow we are losing. This might be a friendly race, but it's a race we must stay competitive in for the future of our children. Think of what kind of a competitive advantage it will be for our kids if they never have to worry about the electric bill, or if they can get to work on inexpensive high speed rail, or if while the rest of the world is struggling to move away from oil and coal, we are already past it-our economy booming providing goods and services while the rest of the world fights through growing pains. America can be a leader in this market, but we need all hands on deck. The next powerpoint I see from a major figure on sustainability shouldn't be about the polar ice caps (though I recognize their importance), it should be about bending the cost curve of energy for American business.