Obama does pick Steven Chu for Energy Secretary

Proof once again that Climate Progress breaks the news hours ahead of the traditional media, sort of (see “A Nobelist for Energy Secretary who gets both climate and energy efficiency?“). Such is the advantage of not actually requiring multiple confirming sources for blog posts and, of course, the ability to put a question mark in the headline.

Wonk Room has more on Chu’s energy credentials here.

If you want to see talks by Chu and by me, click here.

15 Responses to Obama does pick Steven Chu for Energy Secretary

  1. Rick C says:

    Whaddya know. It’s Spence Abraham’s opposite twin. This is especially enjoyable since Abraham is a member of the Hudson Institute which is one of the premier thoughtless tanks promoting global warming denialist rhetoric.

    First Shinseki for one poke in the eye and now Steven Chu to poke in the other eye.

  2. alex says:

    Great graphic from the Guardian. It demonstrates that the problem is global, not US. In fact, the US is one of the few countires where emissions fell between 1995 – 2006. China is now the world’s biggest emitter of CO2 and growing at a staggering 11% a year. That is a doubling every 6.3 years!

    The US needs to show leadership by example, but every country needs to be part of the solution.

    [JR: US emissions have risen 16% since 1990. Nothing to brag about.]

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Dr. Stephen Chu is an inspired choice. I do hope all U.S. citizens commenting here will e-mail their senators to that effect.

  4. David B. Benson says:

    All those just reading here as well.

  5. David G says:

    This good news seems tempered by this WSJ note:

    “Officials familiar with the selections say Mr. Chu is likely to focus his attention on the Energy Department’s core missions: basic science, nuclear weapons and cleaning up a nuclear-weapons manufacturing complex contaminated since the Cold War. Ms. Browner will coordinate renewable energy and energy efficiency policy from the White House, two areas that will feature prominently in a half-trillion-dollar economic-stimulus plan the new president hopes to sign into law as soon as he is inaugurated.”

    Is WSJ on target? Seems like a misuse of Chu, in that case – he’d be better as Czar.

  6. James Raider says:

    If we are to set serious guidelines to clean up our mess in the air and water, we should base decisions on sound data and not emotional hype. For example, …

    While Al Gore’s efforts to clean up the air and water should be applauded, his and other arguments on Global Warming seem rooted in information now appearing to be incorrect…….

  7. Jonsi says:

    I enjoyed the post you referenced, James, though it would be nice if you posted the peer reviewed journal article from which it is based. I am guessing Lyman et al. 2006 (doi:10.1029/2006GL027033) which was subsequently explained by instrument bias from the same researchers (Lyman et. al 2008, doi:10.1175/2008JTECHO608.1. ), the conclusion being warming is observable with the ARGO floats.

    As for Steven Chu, this is an excellent choice. Climate will certainly be a priority for him, but the umbrella of the DOE covers more than energy, and he is someone seemingly capable of managing other goals and bringing in the right people to tackle them, which are the qualities you want for someone in that post. If a Czar is required that means we are resorting to draconian measures, and maybe we’ll need to, but for now as long as the Stephen Johnsons and Spencer Abrahams are gone, I am excited.

  8. says:

    I hope Obama’s picks are also shrewd political operators…. because lacking that will undermine all the intelligence in the world.

  9. llewelly says:

    Such is the advantage of not actually requiring multiple confirming sources for blog posts and, of course, the ability to put a question mark in the headline.

    There’s plenty of evidence many newspaper reporters often don’t bother with “multiple confirming sources” – even “sources that aren’t obviously full of pig excrement”.

  10. llewelly says:

    As an aside, it seems Obama’s picks are very good news for energy and environment, consisting mostly of people who have a record of understanding and promoting sane polices. However, his picks are mostly bad news for the financial crisis, as his finance-related picks consist entirely of people who helped cause the crisis in the first place. Presidents are often (and often rightfully) maligned for focusing on the short term and failing to address long-term problems. Obama seems to be the other way around. (Of course the scale of my comparison is probably somewhat off; the financial crisis seems unlikely to present us with risks comparable in magnitude to the risks of global warming.)

  11. paulm says:

    The guy is a genius!

  12. Jon says:

    Please get over yourself. I had read about Chu on no less than five other sites before you posted it. Of course blogs beat the MSM to these stories–that’s how it works across the board (for reasons you mentioned). I enjoy the actual energy and climate analysis that you do on this site, but the self-obsessed gloating and grandstanding that you can’t seem to get over nearly keeps me from coming back. Nearly. We beg you–stick to the analysis and, for the sake of the cause, get over the “Joe Romm show.”

  13. paulm says:

    Hey, give the guy a break.

  14. Ronald says:

    Why go after Joe, the webmaster. He explains in the first paragraph why he got it before the msm. As for other stuff on this website, it makes for a better website when there is a little edge to it.

  15. Joe says:


    Hmm, I thought my semi-humorous, slightly self-deprecating tone here was obvious, sort of. Guess not.

    Self-obsessed? Gosh, isn’t that a job requirement for a full-time blogger?

    Gloating? What is there to gloat over — we’re headed toward 1000 ppm?

    Grandstanding? “To perform ostentatiously so as to impress an audience.” I could have sworn that was on the job description too.

    I’ll try to be meeker in the future despite the inevitable fall off in readership that will result.