The Institute for Energy Research is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.

About IER
February 1, 2013

IER Statement on Secretary Chu's Resignation

February 1, 2013
Print Friendly

WASHINGTON D.C. — IER Senior Vice President Daniel Kish released the following statement today in response to the announced resignation of Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

“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.”




Print Friendly

View Comments
  • Pingback: Advanced BioFuels USA » Energy Secretary Steven Chu Ignores Biofuels at DC Auto Show and in Resignation Remarks()

  • Zero Carbone

    What an idiotic statement.

    • glennk

      That was just I was thinking, when I saw your comment. Your the idiot though.

      • I love it when the commenter says “your an idiot”.

        Here’s Mr. Kish’s logic: The Chinese ate a lot more rice per capita last year than did Americans. At the same time, the Chinese economy grew like crazy, while ours didn’t. Thus, we should fire the Secretary of Agriculture. Very scientific.

  • Broman1

    wtf. Kish didn’t believe his mama when she said wear a helmet and don’t play in the street. And to think IEF pays this guy money to think so hard. Let’s all go out and burn a gallon of gas today. That’ll fix that darn econimy thing. While we’re at it, we know that birds flap so much more vigorously during hurricanes, so clearly we have to stop the birds causing so much destruction.

    I suppose Kish secretly wishes he were living under the clear blue skies of Beijing these days, meeting his prod quotas and 21st century employee compensation on 19th century energy efficiency.

    is this what passes for intelligence in D.C. lobbying circles?? If your best argument is inane, you’re only making the case more FOR Chu and the Obama policies than against them.

    • glennk

      These denier sites are all so well funded. Life must be good when your working for the wealthiest Corps. on Earth. Of course the price is the sale of your soul to these devils.

    • glennk

      These denier sites are all so well funded. Life must be good when your working for the wealthiest Corps. on Earth. Of course the price is the sale of your soul to these devils.

  • Pingback: Energy Secretary Chastises Climate Deniers, Clean-Energy Critics In Departure Letter | Elm River Free Press()

  • I wonder if they actually do any research here. Judging by Mr. Kish’s statement, I suppose not.

  • arcticsummer

    Mr. Kish, your response to Energy Secretary Chu’s performance lacks substance at the least, and factuality in reality. To “blame” Chu for the alleged woes of the economy illustrates either your disregard for, or lack of understanding, the myriad of parameters that support a “healthy” economy.

    Firstly, an Energy Secretary can in no way single-handedly bring this nation out of the deepest post-war recession to date.

    Secondly, your suggestion that our (U.S.) reduction in energy use by 2.24% is a problem, would seem to be completely lost on the concept of pursuing energy and resource conservation as a national policy of both security and out of necessity: the less fuel we use now, the more we have for future generations, and the fewer CO2 emissions we emit in the here and now.

    Thirdly, China’s rapid economic growth has occurred because they have the capacity to grow, being yet a partly developed nation (admittedly though, their growth will likely have deleterious ramifications on the global supply of natural resources). The U.S. is not in a developing-world scenario; we do not have such a capacity. Nor should we attempt to grow at anywhere near China’s threshold; our resource base – and the world’s – could not handle such an unsustainable track.

    True that U.S. economic growth has largely fueled the “prosperity” we have experienced. But indefinite “growth” – too much of a good thing – will, even with technological advances, at some point overwhelm what both nature and Humankind can provide us. That point would truly be our downfall.

  • Pingback: Aiming High – Secretary Chu Leaving Energy Department – Scientific American (blog) | Weatherization Assistance Program()

  • Pingback: Aiming High – Secretary Chu Leaving Energy Department : Global Energy Matters()

Back to top