When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

The administration aims to teach them—literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.

“We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes.”

Still, Secretary Chu said he didn’t think that the public would throw the same political temper tantrum over climate legislation has has happened with the healthcare debate.

Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback, Dr. Chu said he was optimistic the public would buy the administration’s arguments that energy efficiency and caps on greenhouse-gas emissions will spark an economic rebound.

“I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters.

Don’t look now, but there’s actually quite a lot of debate as to the economic merits of the new green-energy economy. Whether that will spell a healthcare-style revolt against the energy and climate bill stewing in the Senate is another question.

An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.”

When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Khross do you feel this type of language is deliberate in order to get a point across or deliberate to get attention?

Sadly, however, my perception is that he's more right than wrong.

The vast majority of the population aren't even remotely focused on issues like green house gases or environmental issues. They are so myopic that it's only some organization with a bigger picture view and some authority behind it that will affect change.

The irony of the whole situation is that if the people just actually behaved more responsibly, there would be less of a Nanny State.

It's not irresponsible for me to idle my car beyond the money it costs me.

Speaking of which...

/idles truck

it's your wallet. :p

Exactly. And, I'm helping you live in a warmer, more hospitable climate

Diamondeye:

I'm more amused that people are focusing on a supposed "global crisis" when documented local changes are eminently reversible.

Who gets to define "responsible?" Who gets to dictate priorities and concerns for people?

That's because a large part of the population, contrary to the "Everyone is an idiotic drone/sheep" oversiplification so many people (such as the Energy Secretary) like to throw at the public realize that the greenhouse gas/global warming/etc. issues are much more controversial than they are being led to believe. Anyone who can remember the "The oceans will be dead by 1984!" panic is taking this with a grain of salt.

If it was simply a matter of "Hey, save a little energy because you'll save some money" that would be a lot less controversial. I don't have a problem with the government pointing out things like unplugging some unneeded appliances or putting the computer on standby instead of letting it run when you're not using it. That's just making people aware of some facts they might not have considered. Promoting a political agenda to children is a totally different matter.

I guess I don't really see the harm in what they are advocating. Resource management has never been a human strongpoint, and if concerns about global warming get kids into good concervation habits, I probably won't lose any sleep over it.

REally? I think the most amusing thing is that, rather than sell saving energy on the justification of "it saves you money" which almost anyone can get behind

Surely you can't think that is a good idea.

I don't know how resource management could be "not a human strongpoint" since we have no other species to be strong or weak in relation to; only some idealized hypotheticals.

I also don't see any good in feeding impressionable children a hypothesis that is the subject of considerable controversy simply because it will impress some ostensibly good habits.

You bring great sarcasm here, Sensebearer.