I think that oil companies promoting energy efficiency is less about increasing demand for their product as it is two things: 1) good public relations or what the Left might call ‘greenwashing’ and 2) concern during times of high prices that there will be a political price to pay if demand does not subside to bring prices more toward historical levels that are acceptable to the public and politicians.

Jevons’s point about energy efficiency had more to do with natural conservation than government-mandated conservationISM where with CAFE, for example, economists believe that 20% of the fuel savings is lost by motorists driving more miles in their (mandated) fuel efficient cars since the incremental costs of driving are lower.

Take a look at the consulting that the Rocky Mountain Institute has done over the years. You can find some records of the customers on their web site – they often involve established companies in coal, oil and gas. Lovins himself has stated in a matter of fact sort of way that he has worked for oil companies for more than 35 years. (July 18, 2008 during a Democracy Now interview.)

In contrast to unreliable and diffuse alternative energy sources, nuclear fission has successfully pushed oil, gas and coal out of markets and materially increased the supply of useful energy to the point where it forced the price of fossil fuels down. For example, what do you think supplied electricity in France, Japan, Taiwan, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden, and several portions of the US before fission was introduced into the market? What do you think supplied the US Navy’s aircraft carrier and submarine fleet before fission?

Lovins started writing negative things about nuclear way back in the early 1970s when he was the UK representative for Friends of the Earth. He became recognized by some as an energy guru with his publication in 1976 of an article called “Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken” in the October 1976 issue of Foreign Affairs. http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

In that article, he called for a total elimination of nuclear energy in the US and casually accepted a “temporary” doubling of coal consumption. “Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining, not requiring the enormous infrastructure and social impacts implied by the scale of coal use in Figure 1″. (In “Energy Strategy”, Figure 1 was a graph of energy sources under a ‘business as usual’ path.)

As you found during your tenure with Enron, energy efficiency projects are often fraudulent or poorly designed. They are certainly not “easy”, a fact that Lovins and Romm should (and probably do) understand quite well. However, if people have been sold the idea that efficiency strategies are easy and cheap enough to allow them to avoid an investment in something hard like nuclear that takes a long time of dedicated effort, there will be a LOT of fossil fuel extracted and sold during the time that it takes for the data to come in and the failure of the strategy to become evident.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

I do not think these two have any secret agenda with “oil and gas extractors and service providers” as you say. Yes, Enron was pretty big in natural gas, but they were deep into solar, wind, and energy efficiency, as well as emissions trading, to want to parade as a “sustainable” and “green” energy company.

I am perplexed why Romm and Lovins have fought against nuclear, using free-market-sounding arguments that they would reject with wind and solar. Maybe you can explain that for the reader.

I had not heard of Romm’s connection to Enron until this morning, when I read a comment that you posted on the Breakthrough Institute’s series on the bullying tactics that Joe uses against those who favor a different approach.

It has been my growing suspicion for years that the Lovins-Romm school of energy conservation, efficiency, and non nuclear fossil alternatives are simply cover for a profitable association with oil and gas extractors and service providers. Your information helps to solidify that interpretation.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

I told this story on one of my favorite science blogs, Climate Audit, and one of the regulars there directed me to this article. Thank you for this background on Joe Romm. He is obviously a person who is profiting by climate alarmism and does not want his audience confused with facts.