Energy Future’s timeliness underscores another key “energy” problem: America’s inability to get its energy act into gear. “Cognitive, organizational, and political barriers — which are all interconnected — must be surmounted if we are to solve our energy problems,” says HBS professor Max Bazerman of the Negotiation, Organizations & Markets unit. In a democracy of citizens and taxpayers, such dithering largely comes down to a human foible. “When present losses loom larger than future gains,” states Bazerman, “we fail to act in time to make decisions that would create net benefits.” (Hence the occurrence of problems such as overfishing.) Organizationally, Bazerman asserts that the U.S. government is hampered by bureaucratic fiefdoms with too little regulatory flexibility and a lack of collaboration across units and agencies. And in the political realm, Bazerman says, “the failure to implement meaningful campaign-finance reform and curb special-interest groups corrupts sound energy policymaking.”

To begin to break this cycle, Bazerman proposes several steps. For example, the new 2009 administration could make decisions that bestow visible and sizable benefits to the majority while minimally hurting small groups of individuals or interest groups. It could implement policies that will be touted as saving money but that will also be beneficial to the environment (such as greater efficiency).

Bazerman observes that sound energy policies often require people to make a small to medium current sacrifice in returnfor a larger benefit (or a lesser harm) in the future. From research conducted with Todd Rogers (PhDOB ’08), he finds that “such proposals tend to fail because people overweight the immediate cost of implementation.” Therefore, Bazerman says, “mild delay” with new laws can be an effective tactic: “People are more likely to support energy policies that have initial costs and long-term benefits when the policies will be implemented in the future — even in the near future — rather than today.”

Post a Comment