Don't Let the Door Hit You on Your Way Out, Energy Secretary Chu
Energy Secretary Steven Chu is jumping ship, ah, leaving the Obama administration to spend more time with his family, or maybe to cash in on his Federal government experience, or ...whatever. The Washington Post reports that in his departure letter to the DOE staff Chu writes: “I came with dreams and am leaving with a set of accomplishments that we should all be proud of." Can you say, "Solyndra?"
In any case, to mark Chu's departure, the free market Institute for Energy Research is sending around this missive from its Senior Vice President Daniel Kish:
"As Secretary Steven Chu leaves the Department of Energy, it is important to measure his tenure by his record. Under his watch, energy consumption in the United States declined by 2.24 percent while our leading economic competitor, China, increased energy consumption by 28 percent. Similarly, GDP growth in the United States has limped along at the anemic annual rate of 0.6 percent while China's economy has soared at the annual rate of 9.12 percent, more than 15 times our own. Clearly, the policies and priorities of Steven Chu's energy department have benefitted our global competitors and intensified the economic pain felt by millions of unemployed Americans."
That's not completely fair since not everything that went wrong with our economy during the past four years can be blamed on just Secretary Chu.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
The Department of Energy should not exist.
-
This, too.
-
How else would hillbillies have ever gotten power?
-
Moreover, who gives a fuck what China is doing? If China's central planners decided to expand left handed scissor production by 1E6 % should we do the same?
Sure, Chu is a buffoon, but the data they are using to back up their assertion is meaningless.
-
I think they just wanted to use something to club Chu that the plain folk could grok?
-
Fuck the hoi polloi. They buy nickelback albums.
-
True....anyone who does that should be clubbed themselves.
-
Wouldn't that be more like anybody who buys albums needs to be clubbed?
I mean seriously who the hell pays for music today? But even if you are going to pay for it why would you bother buying a prepackaged plastic disk when you can pay $10 a month to Spotify and get all the music you could ever want or just pay $0.99 (or less) and just download the tracks you wanted.
-
That's not completely fair since not everything that went wrong with our economy during the past four years can be blamed on just Secretary Chu.
Three's also not a causal relationship between any fact he stated and it's easier for a smaller economy to grow by a larger percentage than a much larger one. I think Chu has been nothing but abysmal, but let's be fair in our rhetoric and not play the mendacious word games of our political opponents.
-
ms: I did (somewhat sarcastically) note that IER's criticism is "not completely fair."
-
And I quoted you. I was more adding on to what you said rather than finding fault with it.
-
Oh, I can see now where you would think that was a response to you as opposed to adding on to the letter you quoted, which was not my intent.
-
"As Secretary Steven Chu leaves the Department of Energy, it is important to measure his tenure by his record. Under his watch, energy consumption in the United States declined by 2.24 percent while our leading economic competitor, China, increased energy consumption by 28 percent.
The fuck does that mean? China, despite its solar panels and green choo-choos still has the worst pollution in the industrialized world. If they want to throw billions of dollars chasing green tech waterfalls let them.
You'd think if the goal was to increase usage of solar panels they'd let the Chinese flood the market with them and lower the prices so they're more affordable.
-
I'm not sure that shuttering business is the optimal way to cause energy consumption to decline.
-
Huh, I quoted the wrong article.
-
"Three's also not a causal relationship between"
One is the Loneliest Number?
-
I'm glad somebody understands what I'm trying to say.
-
Don't Let the Door Hit
YouChu on Your Way Out,Energy Secretary ChuMr SecretaryFixed that for you, Bailey. How hard could that have been?
-
It's pretty good.
-
A: Hits forehead with palm of hand. Oh!
-
Say, you have some talent at that - do you work for the NY Post by chance?
-
You mean there's like a correlation between energy use and economic growth?
Almost as if, I dunno, when you use energy to like make stuff and stuff, your economy grows? And if you discourage the use of energy you don't like make as much stuff and your economy doesn't grow?
Nah! Correlation is not causation.
-
Under his watch, energy consumption in the United States declined by 2.24 percent
How can this be true? Our most scumbaggy griefer troll on the site whose name will not be mentioned by me keeps saying the exact opposite.
-
If you're referring to Shrike, he generally points to increased energy production, not consumption. No reason the two can't move in opposite directions.
-
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
-
"Under his watch, energy consumption in the United States declined by 2.24 percent while our leading economic competitor, China, increased energy consumption by 28 percent..."
So what does that tell us about anything? Should I be leaving my lights on 24/7 and plugging extraneous appliances into all my household outlets, for FREEDOM?
-
And yes, I do know what he's trying to get at, but it's really stupid to make the case as if the energy-use numbers are important in and of themselves, rather than an indicator of something (i.e. manufacturing growth) that doesn't lend itself to an easy swing at the guy who happens to be in the news today.
-
I only do that on Earth Day.
-
Well yeah, according to Krugman that causes to Grow and is therefore a good thing.
-
Err causes GDP to grow that is
-
Your first statement made no less sense than the fixed statement or anything else Krugabe says.
-
They even auctioned the auction? What a disaster.
-
Doo-DO doo, DO-do Doo, Doo do-DOO, do do-DOO
What I like about Chu
He's all about green
Safe, renewable energy
Is what makes me creamRepublicans whispering in my ear
Talking smack about his career
Solyndra's through
But that's not the fault of Chu! -
Without Chu, there's no change
The days and nights are grey
If I reached out and touched the rain
It just wouldn't be the sameWithout Chu, I'd be lost
Our energy use would drop
We'd slide down so low
My efficiency wouldn't growWithout Chu, without Chu,
A sailor lost at sea
Without Chu, humans
Will be at minimum efficiencyWithout Chu in our life
The environment withers and dies
Without Chu by my side
It's like not being aliveWithout Chu, my hope is small
We were doomed all along
It's like you're fired - deep inside
I know it will turn out wrongYou're the reason the sun shines down
And the nights, they don't grow cold
Without you as Energy Secretary Secretary
The earth will die and get oldWithout Chu, without Chu...
-
Though you might want to add, that with 28% more consumption you also get the nicest smog you can immagine. 2.5 pm of the charts. I can tell you, it's been no fun the last two weeks in Beijing.
