Energy Journalism: Cleaning up the Numbers

Energy journalism can be challenging for reporters. An article on SmartPlanet.com spells out the reasons energy journalism is often low-quality and offers some suggestions for improvement. Since I worked for an energy efficiency research organization for two years and wrote my graduate thesis on the media coverage of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling controversy, I’m going to start where the author ended and provide suggestions for cleaning up energy-related stories.

Question Authorities

Uncritical acceptance of authorities’ statements can cause problems in energy journalism. Here are some litmus tests for reporters:

1. Is the authority qualified to answer the question? If one is quoting politicians on the amount of oil present in a wildlife refuge, for example, errors are very likely. I’ve seen many examples of journalists missing opportunities to fact-check numbers from non-experts.
2. Who is funding the research? If the funding is tied to a specific industry or organization, that funding agency may influence the results. The relationship will vary depending on the organization involved.
3. Is the research public or proprietary? It’s hard to check numbers if their sources are confidential.
4. Has a third party confirmed the numbers? Checking third-party statements can end speculation.

Don’t Trust Statistics

The SmartPlanet article advocates “reading the small print” and “doing the math.” While checking details is important, there are some baseline assumptions energy reporters should understand before digging into the numbers.

1. Economic calculation methods, especially discounting, can be deceptive. Financially savvy experts can adjust discount rates easily to show environmentally friendly investments are impractical. Discount rates can make renewable energy or smart grid investment appear worthless because of the time it takes to recoup the money. Would the next generation agree? I doubt it. Discount rates are a way to account for short-term thinking; this doesn’t mean they are a gold standard which we should use to make all of our decisions.
2. Many energy programs lack effective outreach and marketing. According to Dan Ariely’s comments at the Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference in 2009, telling customers that they will save a tiny monthly amount on their electricity bills may be much less effective than telling them your company has already donated to charity in their name. The lack of social science in program outreach may mean that programs underestimate the savings they could achieve.
3. There’s a large margin of error in estimates of fossil fuel resources. For example, some organizations will say peak oil has already passed us by. Other organizations allow much more time. Typically, in evaluating how much of a fossil fuel is present underground, companies and even government organizations will not have exact numbers for your story. If someone quotes a precise number, be skeptical.
4. Statistics may not include the amount of time and money involved in transitioning to a new technology. If you hear a “before vs. after” comparison without an estimate of the transition cost, pay attention. Companies do evaluate these costs internally, but they rarely become sound bytes. For example, if a company is considering a new nuclear power plant, the cost of insuring the plant should be part of the decision.
5. Experts may omit the social and environmental cost of an energy choice. Energy experts who focus on some questions – such as availability of oil or changes in electric rates – may never mention the local environmental impacts of oil production, the cost to society of air pollution and global warming, and other effects they did not quantify. The insurance industry is concerned about global warming for a reason; these “externalities” are real expenses.

Critical thinking matters in energy journalism. Many of these assumptions and credibility issues are subtle. One can’t expect reporters to view discount rates or oil reserve estimates cautiously. I hope this post will point other writers in the right direction.

P.S. All of the opinions here are my own and are based on my experience working with science news and energy data.

The Smart Grid’s Grassroots Appeal

The phrase “smart grid” might intimidate some audiences. Do we want an intelligent power grid? For some people, the idea might be reminiscent of The Matrix or even 1984. Utility customers may say that futuristic plus costly does not equal appealing.

Defined simply, a smart grid is a modernized, efficient system of power equipment that is responsive to customer energy needs. It’s flexible and decentralized and supports local installations of renewable energy.

A smart grid could reduce power losses due to electrical resistance, but consumer resistance could still pose a problem. Fortunately, one of the main advantages of a smart grid is that it can support local self-sufficiency and sustainable energy choices. It also offers the opportunity to streamline our use of electric power. The cost isn’t trivial, but neither are the benefits. If you’re interested in charging an electric vehicle in your back yard, selling wind power back to your electric company, or saving energy to reduce global warming, the smart grid can be your ally.

The face of the smart grid doesn't have to be forbidding. Credit: somadjinn. Source: Stock.xchng.

It’s important to present smart grid programs as attractive to local stakeholders rather than giving the impression they are a top-down imposition. Smart metering programs have already suffered from a lack of customer-friendly communication. Because some customers believe smart meters benefit utilities more than consumers, programs have met with resistance.

Given the potential savings and autonomy that smart grid technology can provide, it would be disappointing if this technology was portrayed as a burden to utility customers rather than a new and versatile asset.

An Alternative Perspective on Green Jobs

As I hear public conversations about green jobs programs, I find it puzzling that so little attention has been paid to marketing these programs to trainees, businesses and unions.

Regardless of conservative spin, green jobs are a win-win solution to many social issues. If conservatives want to get tough on crime, reduce drug abuse, improve social cohesion in low-income neighborhoods, and practice the bootstrap approach they advocate, supporting green jobs programs is a logical response. The costs of incarceration and poverty are very high.

Let’s take a look at the source of the stigma green jobs programs face. These programs have, from the start, been framed as a socialist solution to capitalist problems. I find it disturbing that these programs – which, ideally, could support businesses, unions, and low-income populations – are being labeled socialist at all.

There is nothing socialist about green jobs programs. These programs support capitalist production and employment. Their structure is, if anything, economically conservative. They direct resources toward educating potential employees and giving them the skills they need to succeed in the workforce.

The only excuse I can see to reduce support for these programs is racial bias. I believe the idea of hiring minority and working-class employees has been used to intimidate many potential allies of green jobs programs.

Businesses stand to gain substantially from green jobs training. In fields where there is a shortage of workers, there is no reason qualified employees shouldn’t step in to fill the gap. This is classic capitalism – supply and demand. There is nothing socialist about this approach.

The only “socialist” part of green jobs training is the fact that some public and private resources are redirected to prepare new employees for work. Currently, college tuitions are skyrocketing in the United States. Expecting lower-to-middle-class young people to fork over a large amount of their future pay to gain job qualifications is not realistic. College dropout rates are related to students’ after-school commitments. I documented the effect of part-time jobs on Latino college students for the PoliMemos project.

The picture that emerges from these facts is far different from the media spin. I see large numbers of people who have the initiative and entrepreneurial potential to succeed and improve their neighborhoods, but who are held back by lack of resources and lack of access to social networks.

Let me make this clear – it is social capital and money that holds green jobs trainees back, not lack of ambition. It surprises me that I haven’t seen any social scientists step up to the plate to challenge this damaging media message.

One can design effective green jobs programs by listening to audiences, including businesses. In the aftermath of the recession, this approach is essential. This is not a luxury. This is a bread-and-butter, capitalist solution to severe social problems.

The only reason I can give for the resistance I see is a lack of awareness that these are ambitious young people who deserve a chance to shine. We may not be able to get them all of the resources their peers can access, but at least we should give them job training.

I saw a rock carving in Gloucester, Massachusetts a while ago which said, “When work stops, values decay.” This is not a radical idea. Although I don’t know about changes in values, I do know unemployment leads to depression and a host of other social ills. What surprises me is that so many people are unable to see that their tax dollars also support prisons and drug treatment programs. These dollars could be sending young people to college.

To the extent that green jobs programs are ineffective, it is because they lack the investment, messaging and coalition building to make their promise a reality. Like Obama’s “hope” slogan, these programs cannot deliver without work.

I’d like to see people put their shoulders to the wheel and make a solid effort to back up the promise of the American dream.

Note: All of the statements here are based on conclusions I reached independently. None of these views reflect the perspectives of any of my employers – past, present or future. I am willing to provide additional information to support any of these statements.