2007
Blue Planet Prize
Professor Joseph L. Sax (USA)Dr. Amory B. Lovins (USA)Professor Emeritus,
University of California, Berkeley

Chairman and Chief Scientist,
Rocky Mountain Institute

SYMPOSION:
On this blue planet, The planet we live inHarmony of life so grandeur Plays the
melody so deep in wisdom.
When have we human beings become soforgetful To listen to the wisdom ofnature And negligent in caring for otherlives. We a tiny member on this planet
Needing care and affection, Became
ignorant to join the chain of infinity To
sustain to live together.
We hope this film Can play its part In
reawakening people's awareness Of ourplanet, the blue planet That tells us theimportance Of all the lives And to lend
an ear To the tune of wisdom of nature.

Selected from the Slide Show Presented at the Openingof the Awards Ceremony
31

His Imperial Highness Prince Akishino congratulates
the laureates

Their Imperial Highnesses Prince andPrincess Akishino at the Awards Ceremony

Hiromichi Seya, Chairmanof the Foundation delivers
the opening address

Dr. Hiroyuki Yoshikawa,
Chairman of the Selection
Committee explains therationale for the determination of the year's
winners

The prizewinners receive their trophies from Chairman Seya

Mr. J. Thomas Schieffer,
Ambassador of the UnitedStates of America to Japan,
congratulates the laureates

The prizewinners
me e t wi t h t h epress prior to theawards ceremony
32

Professor Joseph L. Sax

Dr. Amory B. Lovins

Blue Planet Prize Commemorative Lectures

Profile

Dr. Amory B. Lovins
Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute
Education and Academic and Professional Activities
1947
Born in Washington DC
1964-1967 Harvard University
1967-1969 Magdalen College, Oxford, England
1968-present Consulted for governments and the industries in the U.S. and worldwide
1969-1971 Junior Research Fellow, Merton College, Oxford, England Received a master ofarts (M.A.) degree1971
1982
Co-founded Rocky Mountain Institute; currently Chairman & Chief Scientist
1982
Mitchell Prize
1983
Right Livelihood Award
1989
Delphi Prize
1993
Nissan Prize, ISATA; MacArthur Fellow
1997
Heinz Award for the Environment
1998
Lindbergh Award
1999
World Technology Award
1999
Established Hypercar, Inc. (Chairman 1999-2007), now Fiberforge, Inc.
2000
Time Heroes for the Planet Award
2001
Shingo Prize
2005
Jean Meyer Award
2006
Benjamin Franklin Medal and Life Fellow, Royal Society of Arts (London)
2007
Honorary Member, American Institute of Architects(As of June, 2007)

Dr. Lovins was born in Washington, DC in 1947. From his high-school days, he showed talentin physics, music, classics and mathematics. He entered Harvard College, and transferred to
Magdalen College, Oxford, England. He became a Junior Research Fellow of Merton College,
Oxford in 1969, receiving a master of arts (M.A.) degree in 1971.
During his stay in the U.K., Dr. Lovins was fascinated by Snowdonia National Park in
North Wales, and wrote a book about these endangered Welsh wildlands. Dr. Lovins thenserved for ten years as British Representative for Friends of the Earth. While taking interest innature and environment, he became involved increasingly in energy strategy, initially throughhis research on climate. He wrote his first books on energy "World Energy Strategies" in 1974.
The energy crisis in 1973 drew more people to Dr. Lovins's ideas, and in 1976, hepublished a groundbreaking essay "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?" It redefined theenergy problem from "how to supply more energy" to how to provide just the amount, type,49

and scale of energy that would do each task in the cheapest way, and there he put forward theconcept of the "soft energy path." The concept points out to a new system with efficient use ofenergy and the use of "soft energy technologies" based on such resources as solar, wind force,bio-fuel and geothermal heat. This is opposite to the "hard energy path" which points out to an
existing huge centralized power generation system utilizing fossil fuel and nuclear power. He
envisaged this approach as a "master key" to unlock the intertwined puzzles of energy,
environment, resources, development, and security. Dr. Lovins suggested that soft energy
paths are possible, profitable, environmentally benign, and supportive of fair global
development without the hard path's prohibitive costs and risks.
The soft-path concept initially attracted huge criticism from traditional energy suppliers.
But nowadays, efficient use and soft energy technologies are being adopted worldwide throughcompetition in the marketplace, and it can be said that his pioneering views have been proven.
Dr. Lovins continued to write books and consulted widely to industry, and was active inenergy affairs in some 15 countries as a policy advisor. He and his first wife L. Hunter Sheldon
co-founded Rocky Mountain Institute in 1982 to foster the efficient and restorative use ofresources. They built their home and the original headquarters of Rocky Mountain Institute,
still one of the world's most efficient buildings. The essence of its construction is that in orderto thoroughly utilize the solar heat, it uses high performance insulation and glass, and takes
notice on the heat intake and prevention of its dissipation, and through integrative design
optimizing the whole building as a system for multiple benefits rather than isolated components
for single benefits.
Radical energy efficiency has always been a key goal at Rocky Mountain Institute,
examining in great detail nearly every use and emphasizing the most important ones. In 1991,
Dr. Lovins invented the Hypercar , integrating two known and demonstrated techniques in aradically simplified, software-rich vehicle design. Compared to then-existing cars, Hypercarclass vehicles could triple fuel economy with equal or better performance, safety, andaffordability.
In 1997, the Lovinses and Prof. E.U. von Weizsaecker wrote "Factor Four: Doubling
Wealth Halving Resource Use," and in 1999, with Paul Hawken, the Lovinses published thebook "Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution." In 2004, Dr. Lovins
published "Winning the Oil Endgame" which provided a detailed roadmap for eliminating
U.S. oil use by the 2040s.
Dr. Lovins with his remarkable foresight has consistently proposed and implemented
pioneering concepts since the 1970s in the energy field and many others. Inefficient energy
use has created many economic and security issues and most of the world's environmental
problems, so he has designed compelling technological, business, and policy innovations tosolve them. At the same time, he has shown how to achieve a society where high energy
efficiency and sustainable energy supplies can lead to a safer, environmentally healthier,climate-stabilized, and more rewarding future.

50

EssayApplied Hope
Dr. Amory B. Lovins
The early bioneer Bill McLarney was stirring a vat of algae in his Costa Rica research center
when a brassy North American lady strode in. What, she demanded, was he doing stirring avat of green goo when what the world really needs is love? “There’s theoretical love,” Bill
replied, “and then there’s applied love” and kept on stirring.
Many of us here stir and strive in the spirit of applied hope. We work to make theworld better, not from some airy theoretical hope, but in the pragmatic and grounded convictionthat starting with hope and acting out of hope can cultivate a different kind of world worth
being hopeful about, reinforcing itself in a virtuous spiral. Applied hope is not about some
vague, far-off future but is expressed and created moment by moment through our choices.
Hope, said Frances Moore Lappé, “is a stance, not an assessment.” But applied hope
is not mere glandular optimism. The optimist treats the future as fate, not choice, and thus fails
to take responsibility for making the world we want. Applied hope is a deliberate choice ofheart and head. The optimist, says David Orr, has his feet up on the desk and a satisfied smirk
knowing the deck is stacked. The person living in hope has her sleeves rolled up and is fighting
hard to change or beat the odds. Optimism can easily mask cowardice. Applied hope requires
fearlessness.
Fear of specific and avoidable dangers has evolutionary value. Nobody has ancestors
who weren’t mindful of saber-toothed tigers. But pervasive dread, lately promoted by some
who want to keep us pickled in fear, is numbing and demotivating. When I give a talk,sometimes a questioner details the many bad things happening in the world, all the sufferingin the universe, and asks how dare I propose solutions: isn’t resistance futile? The only response
I’ve found is to ask, as gently as I can, “I can see why you feel that way. Does it make you more
effective?”
In a recent college class, one young woman bemoaned so many global problems thatshe said she’d lost all hope and couldn’t imagine bringing a child into such a world. But
discussion quickly revealed to us both that she hadn’t lost hope at all; she knew exactly where
she’d left it.
The most solid foundation for feeling better about the future is to improve it tangibly,
durably, reproducibly, and scalably. So now is the time to be practitioners, not theorists; to besynthesists, not specialists; to do solutions, not problems; to do transformation, not incrementalism. Or as my mentor Edwin Land said, “Don’t undertake a project unless it is manifestly
important and nearly impossible.” It’s time to shift our language and action, as my wife Judysays, from “Somebody should” to “I will,” to do real work on real projects, and to go to scale.
As that early activist St. Francis of Assisi said, “Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary,
use words.”

51

In a world short of both hope and time, we need to practice Raymond Williams’s truththat “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing.” Hope becomes
possible, practical̶even profitable̶when advanced resource efficiency turns scarcity into
plenitude.
David Whyte’s poem “Loaves and Fishes” captures that goal thus:
This is not the age of information.
This is not
the age of information.
Forget the news,
and the radio,
and the blurred screen.
This is the timeof loavesand fishes.
People are hungry,
and one good word is breadfor a thousand.
So with the world so finely balanced between fear and hope, with the outcome insuspense and a whiff of imminent shift in the air, let us choose to add the small stubborn
ounces of our weight on the side of applied hope. As Zen master Gôtô-roshi put it, “Infinite
gratitude toward all things past; infinite service to all things present; infinite responsibility to
all things future.”
This mission is challenging. It requires you to combine sizzle in your brain, fire inyour belly, perseverance rooted like a redwood, and soul as light as a butterfly. According to
the Internet, one Michael C. Muhammad said: “Everything works out right in the end. If
things are not working right, it isn’t the end yet. Don’t let it bother you̶relax and keep on
going.”
So in this tranquil but unwavering spirit of applied hope, let me tell you a story.
In the early 1950s, the Dayak people in Borneo had malaria. The World HealthOrganization had a solution: spray DDT. They did; mosquitoes died; malaria declined; so far,so good. But there were side-effects. House roofs started falling down on people’s heads,
because the DDT also killed tiny parasitic wasps that had previously controlled thatch-eatingcaterpillars. The colonial government gave people sheet-metal roofs, but the noise of thetropical rain on the tin roofs kept people awake. Meanwhile, the DDT-poisoned bugs were
eaten by geckoes, which were eaten by cats. The DDT built up in the food chain and killed thecats. Without the cats, the rats flourished and multiplied. Soon the World Health Organization
was threatened with potential outbreaks of typhus and plague, which it would itself have52

created, and had to call in RAF Singapore to conduct Operation Cat Drop̶parachuting agreat many live cats into Borneo.
This story̶our guiding parable at Rocky Mountain Institute̶shows that if you
don’t understand how things are connected, often the cause of problems is solutions. Most of
today’s problems are like that. But we can harness hidden connections so the cause of solutions
is solutions: we solve, or better still avoid, not just one problem but many, without making newones, before someone has to go parachuting more cats. So join me in envisioning where theselinked, multiplying solutions can lead if you apply and extend what you’ve learned and takeresponsibility for creating the world you want. Details of this business-led future will be
described this autumn in a book my team and I are now finishing, called Reinventing Fire.
Imagine a world, a few short generations hence, where spacious, peppy, ultrasafe,
125- to 260-mpg cars whisper through revitalized cities and towns, convivial suburbs, andfertile, prosperous countryside, burning no oil and emitting pure drinking water or nothing;where sprawl is no longer mandated or subsidized, so stronger families eat better food on front
porches and kids free of obesity, diabetes, and asthma play in thriving neighborhoods; where
new buildings and plugged-in parked cars produce enough surplus energy to power the nowefficient old buildings; and where buildings make people healthier, happier, and moreproductive, creating delight when entered, serenity when occupied, and regret when departed.
Imagine a world where oil and coal and nuclear energy have all been phased out, allvanquished by the competitors whose lower costs and risks have already enabled them tocapture most of the world’s market for new electrical services, energy efficiency, distributed
renewables, combined heat and power and optionally by small amounts of advanced biofuelsthat use no cropland and move carbon from air to tilth; where resilient, right-sized energy
systems make major failures impossible, not inevitable; where the collapse of oil’s demandand price has defunded enemies, undermined dictatorship and corruption, and doused the
Mideast tinderbox; where our advanced economy is no longer fueled at all by the rottedremains of primeval swamp goo and dinosaur droppings; where energy policy is no longer a
gloomy multiple-choice test-do you prefer to die from (a) climate change, (b) oil wars, or (c)nuclear holocaust? We choose (d) none of the above.
Imagine, therefore, a world where carbon emissions have long been steadily declining
at a handsome profit, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel; where global climate hasstabilized and repair has begun; and where this planetary near-death experience has finallymade antisocial and unacceptable the arrogance that let cleverness imperil the whole humanprospect by outrunning wisdom.
Imagine a world where the successful industries, rather than wasting 99.98% of theirmaterials, follow Ray C. Anderson’s lead: they take nothing, waste nothing, and do no harm;
where the cost of waste is driving unnatural capitalism extinct; where service providers andtheir customers prosper by doing more and better with less for longer, so products become
ever more efficient to make and to use; where integrative engineering and biomimicry create
abundance by design; and where elegant frugality turns scarcities and conflicts about energy,
water, land, and minerals into enough, for all, for ever.
Imagine a world where the war against the Earth is over; where we’ve stopped treating53

soil like dirt, forests are expanding, farms emulate natural ecosystems, rivers run clean, oceans
are starting to recover, fish and wildlife are returning, and a stabilizing, radically resourceefficient human population needs ever less of the world’s land and metabolism, leaving more
for all the relatives who give us life.
Imagine a world where we don’t just know more̶we also know better; where
overspecialization and reductionism have gone from thrillingly fashionable to unaffordably
foolish; where Darwin finally beat Descartes; where vision across boundaries triumphs, simply
because it works better and costs less.
Imagine a world secure, free from fear of privation or attack: where conflict prevention
is as normal as fire prevention; where conflicts not avoided are peacefully resolved throughstrengthened international laws, norms, and institutions; where threatened aggression isreliably deterred or defeated by nonprovocative defense that makes others feel and be moresecure, not less; where all people can be nourished, healthy, and educated; and where all know
Dr. King’s truth that “Peace is not the absence of war; it is the presence of justice.”
Imagine a world where reason, diversity, tolerance, and democracy are once more
ascendant; where economic and religious fundamentalism are obsolete; where tyranny isodious, rare, failing, and dwindling; and where global consciousness has transcended fear tolive and strive in hope.
This is the astonishing world we are all gradually creating together. It’s being built
before our eyes by many of you and a myriad other world-weavers. Brains, as Gifford andLibba Pinchot note, are evenly distributed, one per person. Thus most of the world’s brains arein the South, half are in the heads of women, and most are in the heads of poor people. As anemerging global nervous system and millions of new civil-society organizations start to knit
together that collective intelligence, the most powerful thing we know in the Universeinnovation and collaboration, are starting to overcome stagnation and squabbles. The search
for intelligent life on Earth continues, but as we all strive to become much higher primates,
some promising specimens are turning up just in time: each of you here today.
In their many ways, they’re mobilizing society’s most potent forces, businesses in
mindful markets and citizens in vibrant civil society, to do what is necessary at this pivotal
moment, the most important moment since we walked out of Africa: the moment whenhumanity has exactly enough time, starting now.
Each of you can choose to be one of those unusual people who with humor andcourage, chutzpah and humility, eager enthusiasm and relentless patience are composing theirlives and combining their efforts to make it so.
Here we are. And now imagine the power of all of us together to make it so.

54Lecture

Profitable, Business-Led Solutions to the Climate,Oil, and Proliferation Problems
Dr. Amory B. Lovins
I appreciate the great honor of suggesting here some integrated and profitable solutions to threeof the world's biggest challenges̶climate change, oil dependence, and the spread of nuclear
bombs̶in the spirit of Raymond Williams's remark that "To be truly radical is to make hopepossible, not despair convincing."
Until my "Foreign Affairs" article in 1976, the energy problem was generally thought tobe where to get more energy-more, from any source, at any price, increasingly in the costliest
and highest-quality form (electricity), made from depletable resources in ever bigger facilities.
Instead, I redefined the energy problem around "end-uses"-the tasks that we want energy for,like hot baths, cold beer, comfort, mobility, cooked food, and smelted alumina. I asked how
much energy, of what quality, at what scale, from what source, would do each end-use task inthe cheapest way. This question reveals what happens when all ways to save or produce energy
can compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are (savings or supply), what
technology they use, how big they are, where they are, or who owns them. Of course, that
hypothetical world is far from today's actual energy policies in any country, but it remains asound goal.
Slide 1* - The end-use/least-cost question led to a different answer about the energy future of,say, the United States over the next half-century. In 1975, all government and industry forecastsof U.S. energy use pointed to the upper right, along the red curve. I heretically suggested that
this red curve could be flattened and then decreased, as in the dashed blue curve, by wringing
more work from our energy-by substituting technology and brains for energy and money. That
curve was within 4% of actual U.S. energy use in 2000, although the takeoff of "softtechnologies"-diverse, renewable sources the right size and quality for their task-was delayed
a quarter-century by largely hostile government policies that suppressed competition and evenexported to Japan and Europe the fledgling solar industries that U.S. innovation had hatched.
But now we can to do far better than my 1976 soft-path blue curve,especially in saving
electricity and oil.
Slide 2 - Of course, there are many important differences between energy systems in America
and Japan, most obviously in prices, climates, and land-uses. But in many key ways, thesimilarities seem to me more important than the differences. Energy intensity-the energy used
to make a dollar of GDP-is two to three times higher in America than in Japan, due substantiallyto bigger houses and travel distances and to more and bigger appliances. In some uses,
55* There are supplement slides at the back of the section.

especially in certain industries, Japanese industry is famously #1 in technical efficiency. But
energy efficiency is improving much faster in America than in Japan, and some sectors inJapan, especially building, appear to be lagging. Japan is more conscious of the dangers of oil
dependence, but America is catching up quickly. Of course, Japan never had its own oil
resources; America had abundant oil, but its output peaked in 1970, has since fallen by half,
to only two-fifths of U.S. supply; the rest is cheaper imports. Both countries have large anddiverse renewable energy potential: Japan's is the largest per person of any major industrial
nation. But this potential is badly underused and poorly understood in both countries. America's
national energy policy is weak and fragmented (many states do far better); Japan's is strong
and coherent but is less transparently formed and, as in America, sometimes reflects factional
interests more than the national interest. Both countries have powerful engines of innovationAmerica's driven mainly by small businesses and independent inventors, Japan's mainly by
giant companies and keiretsus. America's great strength is wildly diverse and chaotic
entrepreneurship; Japan's is social cohesion and the wisdom of a long history. America's mainenergy weakness is its utterly dysfunctional national policy, but there are many ways to getaround those roadblocks, mainly through the private sector. Japan's main energy handicap isthe unfounded belief that the nation is poor in energy and can't become much more efficientthan it already is.
Slide 3 - A new McKinsey study reflects the growing official realization that global energy
efficiency can be greatly and profitably improved beyond its normal spontaneously achieved
levels. The potential energy savings costing less than the energy they save can nearly pay for
all the costlier ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thus reductions totaling 46% of thetotal emissions projected for the world in 2030 would have an average cost of only about two
Euros, or ¥325, per tonne of CO2-equivalent avoided. I believe this encouraging result is still
very conservative because it understates the amount and overstates the cost of available energy
efficiency improvements, some of which I'll summarize here.
Slide 4 - In Japan, a fascinating study is emerging from the National Institute of Environmental
Studies thanks to support from the Ministry of the Environment. About 60 diverse experts
have constructed two plausible scenarios for Japan in 2050-one busy and urban, the othermore traditional, serene, and community-centered. Both are consistent with the basic
assumptions of government policy; both have growing wealth and technology; both have an
extremely high standard of living and, in their different styles, quality of life. Strikingly, bothscenarios reduce national CO2 emissions by 70% below 1990 levels.
Slide 5 - This is achieved through a mixture of better land-use or societal organization,
returning per-capita steel and cement production to Western norms (they're now twice thathigh due to exaggerated infrastructure investments), and switching to lower-carbon energy
sources and more efficient end-use technologies. The extra cost of all these improvements in
2050 is estimated at roughly ¥1 trillion per year, or about 0.1% of GDP at that time. This isalready a very impressive and encouraging result. But I'd like to explore whether, even inalready rather energy-efficient Japan, end-use efficiency might be improved even more than56

the assumed 24-41%, and at even lower cost than assumed, thus making even bigger reductions
in greenhouses gases both feasible and profitable. If Japanese people can do this, then others
who are now less efficient can save even more.
It may seem odd to talk about "profitable" climate protection, because the wholepolitical discourse is about how this will be costly, requiring us all to forego wealth, crimp
lifestyles, bear burdens, and make sacrifices. But climate protection is actually like the Hubble
Space Telescope. How? Both got messed up by a sign error-a confusion between a plus sign
and a minus sign. In fact, climate protection is not costly but profitable, because saving fuelcosts less than buying fuel. Every practitioner understands this; only some politicians andjournalists, and therefore many citizens, do not. But once they do, especially in the UnitedStates, political resistance to protecting the climate will melt even faster than glaciers.
Many companies do understand this, so whether or not they worry about climatechange, they are buying energy efficiency just to make money. For example:
・Two of the world's biggest chipmakers have been cutting their CO2 emissions by 6%
every year by improving their factories, recovering their investments in ~2-3 years.
・DuPont set an ambitious goal to cut its energy use per dollar of output by 6% a year,
switch toward renewable fuels and feedstocks, and cut its greenhouse gas emissions
by 2010 to 65% less than in 1990. By 2006, DuPont was 80% below 1990 emissions
and had made $3 billion profit by substituting efficiency for fuel.
・Dow made an even bigger profit by cutting its energy intensity by 42% in 15 years.
・BP met its operational carbon-reduction goals 8 years early at a net profit of $2 billion.
・General Electric has promised to raise its energy efficiency 30% in 7 years to enhanceshareholder value.
・Interface, a carpet and textile maker, has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60% in
a decade (an average rate of over 9% per year) at a third of a billion dollars' profit. By
2020, the firm intends to eliminate all waste and all fossil-fuel input. Already it has
the industry's strongest, least oil-dependent cost structure and much stronger profits.
・Texas Instruments is commissioning a new chip fab in Texas, not China, because myteam was able to help reduce its capital cost by $230 million, or 30%, while saving a
fifth of the energy and a third of the water. The next design should save over 50% via
two additional energy-saving methods.
So while politicians keep lamenting the "costs" of climate protection, such smart firms
are racing to grab the profits before their competitors do!
Slide 6 - Yet the whole climate problem is caused by one percentage point. Here's what thatmeans. Professor Youichi KAYA notes that how fast the global economy emits carbon by
burning fossil fuel is the product of four terms: population, times per-capita GDP, times therate of using primary energy per unit of GDP, times how much carbon each unit of energy
supply releases. Economic theorists normally assume certain rates of change for thesevariables. Their net effect is a 1% annual increase in carbon emissions-enough to triple
emissions by 2100. Those promoting their favorite forms of energy supply generally debate
57the rather small, green term showing carbon reductions per unit of energy. But the red term
showing energy intensity-energy used per dollar of GDP-is normally assumed to change fourtimes faster, even though that's only 1% per year. If we could double that modest pace, to 2%
per year, it would offset population and economic growth, stabilizing global carbon emissions.
If we could increase the rate of cutting energy intensity further, to 3% per year, we'd reducecarbon emissions and rather quickly stabilize the earth's climate, to the extent irreversible
changes aren't already underway. So it is plausible that we could raise the world's energy
productivity by 2-3% per year, whether by using energy more efficiently, making the mix of
outputs less energy-intensive, or changing behaviors?
Some major countries already do this without even paying attention. The United Statesnormally saves about 3% of its energy use per dollar of GDP each year; in 2006, that reached
4% per year, and total U.S. energy use went down 0.8% while GDP rose 3.3%. California
generally saves energy about one percentage point faster than the whole United States-around
4% a year. China saved more than 5% a year for over 20 years, then nearly 8% a year for 5
years (until coming off the rails during 2001-06-this is now being fixed); energy efficiency is
China's top strategic priority for national development, which otherwise becomes impossible.
Attentive companies, some of which I've just named, routinely and profitably cut their energy
intensity or even their absolute energy use or carbon emissions by 6-9% a year. So why should
it be so hard for the world to achieve 3% a year? and since everyone who saves energy also
makes money at it, why should this be costly?
Japan, having saved energy so inspiringly in the 1970s and early 1980s, then slowed
down; the pace of saving energy per yen of GDP averaged only 0.7 per year from 1977 to
2004. The government's New National Energy Strategy calls for doubling that pace, and the
National Institute of Environmental Studies' scenarios would speed it a little further, though
nowhere near, say, the U.S. rate. Even so [Slide 7], the equitable vision of "contraction andconvergence," where all countries have the same carbon emission rights per person andeveryone continues to get richer (especially in developing countries), could head for carbon
reductions around 90% over the next century. Could that grand vision of a richer, fairer, cooler,and safer world actually be feasible and profitable? And could Japan lead the way?
Slide 8 - Some think not. Yomiuri Shimbun spoke for many when it remarked that "Japan's
energy efficiency level is unlikely to improve much, since it is already the best in the world."
Hmmm. Is that how Toyota thinks about making cars? Is it how Japan became such a mighty
industrial power? Doesn't continuous improvement apply to energy as much as tomanufacturing? Isn't Japan still the best in the world at this kaizen? As an admirer of Japan's
scientific and technical genius as much as of its unique contributions to world culture, I believe
Japan can lead this global leapfrog. And I know frogs leap also in Japan, because Bashô tells
us so:
furu ike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto
To see how this Japanese frog can leap ahead of the world, let's focus on oil and58

electricity, each of which is responsible for two-fifths of the world's CO2 emissions.
First let's see where we're starting. Many of Japan's leading firms have already madeimpressive and exciting contributions to saving the climate: Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Ricoh,
Kirin, and many more. But outside such pioneering companies, challenges have emerged.
Slide 9 - The per-capita use of electricity is the most important indicator of climate progress,
because classical power plants use roughly three or four units of fuel to make and deliver one
unit of electricity, and worldwide, most of their fuel is coal, the most carbon-intensive kind.
Notice how, since 1965, the orange line, for Japan, has been rising about as steeply as the
purple line, for Texas, or the green line, for the whole United States. There are many causes:
strong industrial growth until recent years, a reversal of previously falling energy intensity insome big industries since 1990, a 45% increase in household electricity per person. That risein turn is due to more and bigger appliances and to a huge increase in lighting, which operates
for much longer hours in Japanese homes than anywhere else, partly because of long commutes.
Meanwhile, too, houses became a little better insulated, but indoor temperatures, traditionallyaround 15 ℃, rose even faster, the kotatsu gave way to bigger room heaters, and air conditioners
to cool inefficient buildings continued to displace traditional architecture, attitudes, andcustoms.
Now compare the red line, California, where (as in New York State) the average citizen's
total electricity use in all sectors is now slightly below that of the average Japanese person. In
the past 30 years, while the average Japanese person's total electricity use doubled, the average
Californian's total electricity use stayed flat even though her real income rose by 79%. Half of
this dramatic efficiency gain came from strong and early efficiency standards for buildings
and appliances. The other half came from rewarding utilities for cutting your bill, not for
selling you more energy (as Japan and nearly all of the United States still do). Using electricity
far more efficiently has saved California from building 65 billion watts of power stations,which with their grid investments would have cost upwards of $100 billion. Since Japan has
3.4 times more people than California, this implies that if Japanese people had held theirelectricity use flat for 30 years rather than doubling it, they wouldn't have needed tens oftrillions of yen worth of electricity supply investments that help make Japanese electricity
some of the costliest in the world.
Slide 10 - But don't those doubled-efficiency hybrid cars pioneered in Japan, not to mention
those amazing Japanese mini-cars, make Japan a leader in oil efficiency? Not exactly. If wecompare different countries' household vehicles (cars, vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks) using
the same test procedures, we're surprised to find that in the late 1990s, the average Japaneselight-duty vehicle became as inefficient as its American counterpart, pulling only slightly
ahead in the past two years.
These broad facts, plus the technical literature and my decades of observations of how
energy is used in Japan, suggest that there are surprising parallels between our two countries'
potential for further profitable gains in energy efficiency. My team's very detailed studies andpractical experience illustrate that potential to be in the United States.
59

There, if we fully adopted today's best efficiency techniques, we'd save over half the oilat a sixth of its price, half the gas at an eighth of its price, and three-fourths of the electricity
at an eighth of its price. Implementing these radical efficiency gains would require extra
investments equal to only one-sixth of the current direct price of the energy they'd save (atprices far below Japan's). This shift would also make energy cheaper, stabilize prices and keepthem lower for longer, dramatically cut CO2, enhance security, and buy time to learn more,choose better, and develop and deploy better techniques. While many details differ between
the U.S. and Japan, I believe the Japanese potential for percentage reduction in energy use is
not fundamentally different. The distinguished engineer KOMIYAMA Hiroshi-sensei,
President of Tokyo University, agrees that about two-thirds of Japanese energy can beadvantageously saved.
Slide 11 - To illustrate what can be done in buildings, which in Japan are particularly
underinsulated, let's visit my own house, indoor farm, and office high in the Colorado Rockies
at 2200 meters (7100 feet) above sea level. There we have seen temperatures as low as -44℃(-47°F), 39 days of continuous midwinter cloud, and frost on any day of the year. Yet if youcome in out of the snowstorm into the central atrium, you're in a jungle where I've alreadyharvested 28 banana crops and the new banana trees are growing 2 cm per day-and then you
realize there's no furnace. The superinsulated house is 99% heated by the solar gain throughthe superwindows (which insulate as well as 12 to 19 sheets of glass, but look like 2 and costless than 3), plus the heat from people, lights, and appliances. These heat-saving techniques
reduced total construction cost by $1100, because they added less capital cost than I saved by
not installing a heating system. I then reinvested that money, plus a further $6000-a net totalof about ¥1900/m2-in saving also 99% of the water-heating energy, half the water, and 90% of
the household electricity. If I bought my home's electricity rather than making it with solar
panels, it would cost only about ¥600 per month for 372 m2. All these efficiencies together
repaid their extra cost in ten months with 1983 technologies; today we can do much better.
In a hot climate, up to 46℃ (115 °F), this ordinary-looking California tract house, withthe obligatory stupid dark roof, was designed to use one-tenth the normal U.S. amount ofenergy. It provided excellent comfort with no air-conditioner, yet if built in quantity, would
have cost about $1800 less than normal to build and $1600 less over time to maintain, because
it had no heating or cooling equipment. Or in steamy Bangkok, architecture Professor Soontorn
BOONYATIKARN built this modern house, at exactly normal cost, providing superior
comfort with one tenth the normal amount of air-conditioning energy.
These three houses, spanning the range of the earth's climates, show how integrative
design-getting multiple benefits from single expenditures-can make very large energy savings
cost less than small savings!
Slide 12 - That sounds odd to economic theorists who believe in "diminishing returns": themore energy you save, the more and more steeply the cost of the next unit of savings keeps
rising, until it gets too expensive and you must stop. Insulation does work this way. If, likemost engineers, you buy only as much insulation as will repay its extra cost from saved heating
fuel over the years, then you will have thin insulation and a big furnace burning costly fuel.
60But if you remember to minimize total cost-construction cost as well as operating cost-then
you'll discover a new part of the curve: [Slide 13] you can add so much insulation that you
eliminate the whole heating system-furnace, pipes, pumps, ducts, fans, wires, controls, andfuel-supply arrangements! This makes the capital cost come down to less than you started
with, just as my house saves 99% of its heating energy, at a lower construction cost than if I'dtried to save little or nothing.
Slide 14 - And rather than getting there the long way around, we can "tunnel through the cost
barrier" directly to that design destination-muda nashi (no waste). (For details on how to do
this, www.rmi.org/stanford posts my five new Stanford University lectures on advancedenergy efficiency.) And this isn't just some magic we do in Colorado. Central and northern
Europe already have more than ten thousand "Passive Houses" that are comfortable with noheating systems, with zero extra construction cost.
Surprisingly, we can tunnel through the cost barrier not only in new buildings but also
in retrofits (fixing up old buildings) if we properly coordinate with other major renovations
that are happening anyway, such as renewing the façade or the mechanical equipment. For
example, in 1994 we designed a retrofit for a 19,000m2 curtainwall office building in Chicago,
which has both a hot and a cold climate. The 20-year-old window units had failing edge seals,
so the whole curtainwall needed reglazing. But rather than replacing the dark heat-absorbing
glass with the same kind, we found superwindows that would be nearly perfect in letting inlight without heat. They'd admit nearly six times more visible light and a tenth less unwanted
heat, and would block the flow of heat and noise 3-4 times better, at a slightly higher cost. But
adding glare-free daylight distribution all the way through the building, plus very efficient andwell-controlled lights and office equipment, would cut the peak cooling load by 77%. Then
replacing the cooling system with a new one four times smaller and nearly four times more
efficient would cost $200,000 less than renovating the big old system (for age and to eliminate
its CFCs [chlorofluorocarbons]). That capital saving could then pay for the superwindows andthe lighting and daylighting retrofits, yielding a 75% energy saving with a payback of minus
five months-that is, a lower capital cost-compared with the normal 20-year renovation thatsaves nothing.
We can tunnel through the cost barrier not just in buildings but also in vehicles andfactories. For example, a loop to pump a heat-transfer fluid around a factory was designed bya noted European engineering firm to use 70.8 kW of pumping power. A Dutch engineer using
our methods reduced this by 92%, to 5.3 kW, at lower construction cost and with better
performance, via two changes in design mentality that resulted in using fat, short, straightpipes rather than thin, long, crooked pipes. This is not rocket science; it's just Victorian
integrative design rediscovered.
Slide 15 - I've offered you a pumping example because power plants release 40% of theworld's CO2, three-fifths of electricity runs motors, and pumps and fans, which have similar
physics, are the two biggest uses of motors. If you feed ten units of coal into a classical power
61

station, nine units get lost in the compounding losses of conversion, distribution, and then the
motor and pumping systems. Only one unit of energy comes out of the pipe as flow. But if wereverse those compounding losses into compounding savings, then each unit of flow or friction
saved in the pipe saves ten units of coal, climate change, and cost at the power plant. It also
makes the motor about 2.5 units smaller (hence cheaper). All the upstream components
become smaller, simpler, and cheaper. That's why we should always start saving at thedownstream end.
Slide 16 - For example, often a big pump, meant to send fluid up a pipe, has an adjacent helper
pump or identical in-place spare pump. They're drawn and then built so that the flow must
always go through two 90°bends (friction) and two valves. A new design mentality could makethe flow go through no bends and no valves (or one valve).
Slide 17 - When my colleague, engineer Peter RUMSEY, did this in retrofitting a pumping
loop, his odd-looking piping layout saved 75% of the pumping energy and eliminated 15
pumps that will never again waste electricity and maintenance.
My team has lately redesigned more than $30 billion worth of facilities for radical
energy efficiency. In motor systems, for example, 35 kinds of improvements can save about
half the electricity (not counting any previous, and typically even cheaper, savings in thesystems that the motor is driving, like pumps and pipes). But the cost is repaid within a year
because you need to buy only 7 kinds of savings; the other 28 are free byproducts. We see
similarly rapid returns when saving half the energy used to make chilled water and clean air inchip fabs. Whether we're retrofitting an oil refinery or platform, a naval vessel, a huge liquefied
natural gas (LNG) plant, or a giant platinum mine, or designing a new Fischer-Tropsch plant,
data center, chip fab, supermarket, two chemical plants, even a luxury yacht, we typically findthat retrofits can save ~30-60% of the energy with a 2-3-year payback, while in new installations,
we save more, generally 40-90%, and the capital cost almost always goes down. We have"tunneled through the cost barrier" in 29 diverse sectors of the economy-every one we've tried.
Of course, none of this would be possible if the designs had been optimal to start with. I'm
getting tired of retrofitting things that weren't designed right the first time. To get to the root of
the problem, we must reform engineering practice and pedagogy fundamentally. I hope next
summer to help leading practitioners write a casebook on Factor Ten Engineering, presenting
in detail such vivid examples that they will irreversibly rearrange engineers' mental furniture.
Our aim is the nonviolent overthrow of bad engineering. We warmly invite practitioners who
think this way to share their most compelling case-studies via www.10xE.org.
Now let's turn to oil, whose burning releases 42% of the world's CO2, and which has
many other problems. (For example, two-thirds of Saudi oil flows through one processing
plant that's already been attacked, and through two terminals of which the larger has alreadybeen attacked twice.) In 2004, my team published Winning the Oil Endgame (www.oilendgame.
com)-an independent study, cosponsored by the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense andwritten for business and military leaders, for getting the United States completely off oil by the622040s, with a much stronger economy, all led by business for profit.
Slide 18 - Rather than always rising, U.S. oil use (the solid red line) and oil imports (the dashed
red line) could be turned down along the green lines by redoubling the efficiency of using oilalready doubled since 1975-at an average cost of $12 per saved barrel (2000). We could thenturn down even more steeply along the blue lines by replacing the other half of the oil withsaved natural gas and advanced biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, all at an average cost of$18 per barrel. Thus the average cost of eliminating U.S. oil use is only $15 per barrel, or about
one-fifth the current world price-assuming that the hidden environmental, security, and othercosts of oil are worth zero, a conservatively low estimate.
Even faster oil savings are possible, because the U.S. actually achieved them when it
last paid attention to oil. During the eight years 1977-85, America's GDP grew 27%, oil use
fell 17%, oil imports fell 50%, and oil imports from the Persian Gulf fell 87%. (They'd havebeen gone in the next year if this had continued.) The world, including Japan, saved so muchoil that OPEC's exports fell 48%, breaking the cartel's pricing power for a decade. We
customers-especially in America, the Saudi Arabia of "negabarrels"-had more market power
than the suppliers, because we could save oil faster than they could conveniently sell less oil.
That was practice; this is real. Today we could re-run that old play much better, using our far
more powerful technologies.
Suppose that by 2025 the United States invests $180 billion in the journey beyond oilhalf to retool its car, truck, and plane industries, half to build an advanced biofuels industry.
Suppose that the world oil price were then just $26 a barrel (2000) which might be true if wesaved that much oil! But even against this low oil price, the $180 billion investment would
earn a handsome net return of $70 billion per year. As a free byproduct, CO2 emissions would
fall 26%. America would also get a million new jobs (three-fourths rural) and could save amillion jobs now at risk, mainly in automaking, where the choice is whether to continue
importing efficient cars to replace oil or to make efficient cars and import neither the cars nor
the oil.
Our study's competitive-strategy analysis for the car, truck, plane, fuel, and military
sectors found a business logic so compelling that public policy need only support, not distort,
the business logic. Rather than needing government to force us to commit unnatural acts in themarketplace, the profit motive could implement this off-oil transition without new energy
taxes, subsidies, mandates, or national laws-though a compatible policy framework would
speed the transition, and we did suggest new policies more effective and attractive than
traditional ones.
Technologically, the key is transport, which uses 70% of U.S. oil. But making trucks,
cars, and planes lighter-weight, lower-drag, and with advanced propulsion could triple theirefficiency, with uncompromised comfort and performance and better safety, and repay thebuyers' extra cost in 1, 2, and 4-5 years respectively at low U.S. fuel prices. Often performance
would improve too, as in the Opel Eco-Speedster carbon-fiber diesel hybrid car that gets 250
km/h (155 mph) and 40 km/L (94 mpg), although not at the same instant! Surprisingly, theultralighting that doubles the efficiency of these carbon-fiber concept cars doesn't raise their63

production cost, because the costlier material is offset by simpler automaking and a 2-3-times
smaller powertrain.
Slide 19 - This opportunity emerges from the physics of a typical car. Each day it burns ~100times its weight in ancient plants (very inefficiently converted to gasoline). But where doesthat energy go? Seven-eighths of it never reaches the wheels, but is lost first in the engine,
idling, driveline, and accessories. Of the one-eighth that does reach the wheels, half heats thetires and road or heats the air that the car pushes aside. Only the last 6% of the fuel energy
accelerates the car and then heats the brakes when you stop. But since only one-twentieth ofthe mass being accelerated is you-the rest is the car-only 5% of 6%, or 0.3%, of the fuel energy
ends up moving the driver! After 120 years of devoted engineering effort, this is not very
gratifying.
But there's good news. Three-fourths of the energy needed to move the car is caused by
its weight, and every unit of energy we save at the wheels saves seven more units we needn't
waste getting it to the wheels, so there's huge leverage in making the car radically lighterweight.
Slide 20 - Traditionally this meant light metals like aluminum, which cost more but work well.
I drive a 27-km/L (3.56 L/100 km, 64 mpg) Japanese aluminum hybrid car. New ultralightsteels are starting to compete too. The strongest, lightest solution is composites reinforced bycarbon fiber. This Mercedes SLC McLaren supercar, handmade for a half-million dollars, ismade of such "advanced composites." It was hit by a VW Golf, which was totaled, but the
McLaren only lost a side-panel, which they'll snap back on and fix the scratch later. At thefront corners, under the hood, is a pair of 3.5-kg carbon-fiber crush cones that can absorb theentire crash energy of this car's hitting a wall at 105 km/h, because such materials in the rightshapes can absorb 6-12 times as much crash energy per kg as steel, and do so more smoothly.
Such light-but-strong materials let us make cars big (which is protective and comfortable)
without also making them heavy (which is hostile and inefficient), so we can save oil, lives,and money all at the same time.
Of course, advanced composites' challenge is cost. They're used in military andaerospace applications at about a thousand times higher cost and lower volume than automakers
need. But I became encouraged about bridging that gap when I met a young Lockheed-Martin
Skunk Works engineer who had led the development of a 95%-carbon fighter plane that was
one-third lighter, yet two-thirds cheaper, because it was optimally designed for manufacturingfrom carbon, not metal. It was so unusual that he couldn't find a military customer, so in due
course I was able to hire him to do the same for cars, which we did in 2000 with two European
Tier One auto engineering firms (www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T04-01_
HypercarH2AutoTrans.pdf).
Meanwhile, a new manufacturing method for making cost-competitive advancedcomposite automotive structures is being rapidly commercialized by a small firm I chaired; forexample, this test piece for an ultralight helmet, tougher than titanium and able to withstand asledgehammer, can be made in less than a minute. Cars made of similar materials would64

weigh half as much as today's steel cars, save half the fuel, be safer, yet cost the same to make.
Making American cars this way would be like finding an inexhaustible Saudi Arabia under
Detroit.
Here's the car we designed in 2000 that could be made with such a process. It's anuncompromised midsize SUV that can carry five adults in comfort and up to 2 m3 of cargo,
haul a half-ton up a 44% grade, accelerate 0-100 km/h in 7.2 seconds, yet increase efficiency
by 3.6-fold to 28 km/L (3.51 L/100 km, 67 mpg) using a Prius-like gasoline hybrid powertrain.
Such a car would have an extra retail price of $2511 (2000 $), repaying its extra cost from one
year's fuel savings in Japan or two years' in America. Or if run on a hydrogen fuel cell, it would
achieve 6.2-fold higher efficiency, 48.5 km/L (2.06 L/100 km, 114 mpg), and could compete
one or two decades sooner than heavy steel cars. That's because needing two-thirds less energy,
the car's hydrogen tanks would become small enough to fit and its fuel cell would become
small enough to afford early. Most interestingly, such vehicles would have ~99% lower toolingcost than today's steel cars, would need no body shop or paint shop (the two hardest andcostliest stages in automaking), and would need at least two-fifths less capital than theindustry's leanest plant today.
Such gamechanging technologies make me wonder if U.S. automakers might use
radical energy efficiency as a competitive strategy, much as Japanese automakers did in boldly
introducing and then selling more than a million hybrid-electric cars and building up aformidable lead in that technology-in which GM was once 18 months ahead of Toyota but thenstumbled. Such an American leapfrog, in airplanes, is now getting attention in Detroit. In
1997, Boeing was in a crisis much like Detroit's today. The Toyota Manufacturing System andother wrenching changes at Boeing Commercial Airplanes brought costs under control, butthere was little viable innovation in the pipeline after the 777. In 2003, Airbus outsold Boeing,and some serious analysts were starting to doubt Boeing's longevity. But in 2004, Boeing's
riposte was the 787 Dreamliner-one-fifth more efficient at the same price, 50% carbon-fiber
composites by mass (up from 9% in the 777 ), with many customer and operator advantages
and with assembly time cut from 11 days to 3. It's now sold out into 2014. Its order takeoff has
been the fastest of any airplane in history. Now Boeing is bringing those innovations to every
commercial airplane it makes, before Airbus can even steer itself out of the ditch. This stunningsuccess naturally makes U.S. automakers wonder: if you're in the ring with the world champion
sumo wrestler, do you just keep training to become a little faster and stronger-or do you quietly
shift the game to aikidoh?
My team is two-thirds of the way through an effort to make America's journey off oil
irreversible, via "institutional acupuncture": we figure out where the business logic is congested
and not flowing properly, and we stick needles into it to stimulate the flow. I think we're alreadypast the tipping point-with much more work to do, but it gets easier from now on-in three ofthe six sectors we must influence. In aviation, Boeing's efficiency leapfrog has won, and will
doubtless finance rapid development of even more efficient airplanes to make its lead
unassailable. In heavy trucks, based on our analysis, Wal-Mart (the world's largest company)65

is requiring double defficiency trucks from its suppliers; that "demand pull" drags the trucks
into the market where everyone can buy them, saving 6% of U.S. oil use (ultimately 8% with
the next step-tripled-efficiency trucks). The U.S. Department of Defense is rapidly becoming
the most important part of the Federal government in leading the country off oil, so ultimately
they needn't fight over oil. Military leaders really like the idea of nega-missions in the Persian
Gulf-Mission Unnecessary. There is also gratifying progress in the fuel and finance sectors: in2006 alone, the "clean energy" space received $71 billion of new private investment.
Obviously the slowest and hardest sector to transform is automaking, but here too,progress is quickly accelerating. In 2004, our study proposed that Detroit follow Boeing's
competitive strategy based on breakthroughs in ultralight materials, advanced propulsion, andintegrative design. Two years later, Ford Motor Company hired the head of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, who had led that revolution, as its new CEO; he is now in Detroit withtransformational intent. The United Autoworkers' Union and the car dealers are keen for suchinnovation to save their industry. The tsunami of "creative destruction" (as economist Joseph
Schumpeter called it) sweeping over the global auto industry-plus emerging competition from
India, China, and others-is now the greatest since the 1920s. It will change automakers'
managers or their minds, whichever comes first: both Ford and Chrysler now have turnaroundexpert CEOs from outside the auto industry. Indeed, my team currently has two transformational auto projects underway, one at an automaker level and one at a Tier One supplier level,
and this spring, both surpassed expectations.
Japanese automakers' extraordinary achievements since the 1990s in commercializing
hybrid-electric cars are just the first step. An excellent hybrid like Prius, properly driven,roughly doubles efficiency, much more if ultimately equipped with a diesel engine (if it can beclean enough) or its ~60% efficient successor, the "digital engine" first tested by Sturman
Industries, a small Colorado firm, in January 2007. Making today's hybrid cars ultralight, with
better aerodynamics and tires, can redouble their efficiency at no extra cost with highly
integrative design. Fueling such "Hypercars " with 85% sustainably grown cellulosic ethanolor butanol and only 15% gasoline quadruples again their kilometers per liter of oil, reducing
cars' oil use to 1/16th the current level.
But then we can go further, beyond our oil-endgame analysis. For example, Toyota is toroad-test in November 2007, and is rumored to be preparing to sell as early as Model Year2008, a plug-in hybrid-electric car. Such vehicles could again at least redouble the efficiency
of using oil, reduce carbon emissions, and require no new power stations. Moreover, a plug-in
hybrid intelligently connected to the power grid when parked could exploit the "vehicle-togrid" opportunity I invented in the early 1990s, selling electricity from its distributed storage
capacity back to the electric companies when and where it's most valuable. This could justify
utility financing for the costly batteries. Later, fuel-cell Hypercars could act as power plants on
wheels, able when parked (~96% of the time) to earn impressive profits-for the first two million
Americans to do so, roughly the whole cost of the car-by selling power back to utilities
downtown on hot afternoons. This could readily put the coal and nuclear power plants out ofbusiness, since a full U.S. Hypercar fleet would have 6-12 times as much generating capacity
as all the utilities now own. Thus Hypercar technology could end up profitably eliminating the66

majority of CO2 emissions by addressing both their oil and electricity causes. But even without
fuel cells, just biofueled plug-in ultralight hybrids could cut cars' oil use per km by 97%. Thenhydrogen (and battery-powered pure-electric cars) could compete for the last 3% as well as forthe biofuel market. Hydrogen fuel cells, practical and affordable when put in Hypercars, will
reduce drivers' cost per km and will cut CO2 per km by 2-6-fold, then become carbon-free withsequestration or renewable hydrogen.
Cars last about 14 years (except in Japan, where the government makes us scrap themprematurely), and planning and tooling new models takes years, so big automotive change ispainfully slow. But U.S. automakers took only six years in the 1920s to switch from wood tosteel autobodies, and at the start of World War II, converting all car factories to make war
materiel took just six months. The last time the U.S. paid attention to oil, it cut oil intensity bymore than 5% per year (like displacing a Persian Gulf's worth of imports every 2.5 years); thebiggest saving came from a nearly 5% annual gain in the efficiency of new domestic cars-96%
from making them smarter, and only 4% from making them smaller.
In recent years, Boeing has inverted the airplane industry's competitive ranking in just
2-4 years, with a breakthrough product a hundred-fold more complex and even more highly
regulated than a car. General Motors's small team took the breakthrough EV1 battery-electric
car from concept to street in three years. Thus even big organizations can move quickly if theefficient new product is simpler than the inefficient old one. Of course, normal S-curve
diffusion of new technologies normally takes 12-15 years to take the stock of product from
10% to 90% adoption, but the kinds of innovative competitive strategies and public policies
we suggest in Winning the Oil Endgame can reach the 10% "takeoff point" three years earlier
and then spread much faster.
Slide 21 - The oil industry views its global extractable resource base as a supply curve withrising costs. One trillion barrels have already been burned. The International Energy Agency
says the world will need about that much again through 2030-about the amount that OPEC
countries in the Middle East officially claim they can provide at a price far above the competitive
free-market price of about $5-14 per barrel. After that, oil or its conventional substitutes
become rapidly more difficult, remote, costly, and disagreeable.
Slide 22 - But if we add the savings and substitutes documented in Winning the Oil Endgame,
conservatively scaled from the United States to the world, the whole supply curve slides threetrillion barrels to the right, saving probably tens of trillions of dollars.
Slide 23 - Since resources like tar sands, oil shales, and coal-to-liquids are not only costly but
also far more carbon-intensive than conventional oil, not using them also keeps more than atrillion tonnes of carbon out of the air.
Let me conclude with a few remarks about electricity-the other two-fifths of the CO2
problem-and about Japan's unique opportunity to lead all these changes.
Slide 24 - With electricity at least as much as with oil, efficiency is a rapidly moving target. In
67the early days of exploring America's "negawatt" potential, 1984-89, the efficiency resource
became twice as big but three times cheaper in just five years. Since then, it has become stillbigger and cheaper, thanks to mass production (often in Asia), innovation, competition, andthe pervasive effects of the IT revolution. Consider refrigerators, for example-the biggest userof electricity in most U.S. houses that don't use electricity to heat space or water. The electricity
used by a new refrigerator soared until the first oil shock, partly because refrigerators kept
getting bigger. They stopped getting bigger around 1980 so they could still fit through the door
and into the kitchen. But meanwhile, California and then Federal efficiency standards
quadrupled their efficiency, saving energy by 5% a year, while refrigerators also became 64%
cheaper. Japan's recent progress (though under a different test procedure) has been even faster.
And there's still room for improvement, as illustrated by the custom-made refrigerator I've
used since 1985 and the Dutch state of the art in 2000.
Slide 25 - In the late 1980s, my team synthesized a decade of what is probably still the mostdetailed effort to assess how much electricity can be saved at what cost. Measured cost andperformance data showed that fully applying ~1,000 efficiency technologies in new andexisting buildings and factories could save ~75% of America's 1986 electricity use, at an
average technical cost that in today's money would be about 1 U.S. cent per saved kWh. The
North American utilities' think-tank, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), found a
somewhat smaller potential saving-only 40-60% by 2000-but still cheaper than the cost of just
operating a coal or nuclear power plant and delivering its electricity. (Most of the differences
between these two studies were due to methodology, not substance.) Our findings were also
consistent with other studies in Europe. And as EPRI agrees, the efficiency technologies
continue to improve in cost and performance faster than we're using them up, so saved
electricity, or "negawatts," keeps on becoming an ever bigger and cheaper resource. The "lowhanging fruit" is mushing up around our ankles and spilling in over the tops of our waderswhile the innovation tree pelts our head with more fruit!
Slide 26 - A similar but even less visible revolution is happening in electricity supply: low- andno-carbon decentralized generators are eclipsing central thermal power stations. These graphs
show the electricity produced and the capacity installed, both worldwide, for what The
Economist magazine calls "micropower." Real data are on the left side of the vertical line,
industry projections on the right. Micropower has two components:
・The tan wedge is combined-heat-and-power ("cogeneration")-making electricity
together with useful heat. It's very efficient and about two-thirds gas-fired, so it saves
over half the carbon emitted by the separate power plants and boilers or furnaces thatit replaces.
・The colored wedges are all the renewable sources of electricity except big hydroelectric
dams (units over ten megawatts).
Astonishingly, micropower now provides a sixth of the world's electricity-slightly morethan nuclear power-and a third of the world's additions of electricity. Micropower in 2005
provided from one-sixth to more than half of all electricity in 13 industrial countries. Thesegraphs don't show "negawatts," which are probably about as big, so together, micropower and68

negawatts now provide the majority of the world's new electrical services. Because they'remass-produced, quickly built and installed, and bought by millions of dispersed market actors,
they're more like cellphones than like cathedrals, so they can grow very quickly. For example,
in 2005 (the last full data available), micropower added four times the output and 11 times thecapacity that nuclear power added worldwide (both net of retirements). Moreover, even though
it gets smaller subsidies and faces bigger obstacles than its traditional competitors, micropower
won investments of more than $100 billion of private risk capital-$56 billion just for the
distributed renewables-while nuclear got none (it's bought only in centrally planned powersystems).
The simplest explanation for micropower's marketplace victory over central thermal
stations is that its lower costs and financial risks make it more attractive to investors.
Slide 27 - Let's test that hypothesis by examining the best empirical U.S. data on what it costs
to make and deliver (or to save) a new kWh of electricity at the retail meter. We'll examine both
remote resources, which incur a delivery cost to reach the customer, and onsite resources,
which are already delivered. Your actual costs may vary, but I've done the analysis in a way thatfavors central stations. For those I used the canonical 2003 Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT) study, whose costs included whatever subsidies central stations then got,
but not the reserve margin needed to back up those big plants when they fail.
The MIT study found that a new nuclear kWh would cost 7.0¢ to make (2004), so
adding a deliberately low, decade-old average delivery cost for U.S. investor-owned utilities
would bring the delivered cost to nearly 10¢. The MIT study said that huge new subsidies
might, if everything went well, cut that cost by nearly 3¢, though a 2007 industry consensus
group found the base-case cost has since risen by up to 3¢. Meanwhile, the MIT study foundthat a coal plant would cost slightly less than best-case nuclear power might achieve, thoughcoal plants too have lately become costlier. Yet a big ($100/tonne) carbon tax could make thecoal plant look nearly as costly as the nuclear base case, and similarly for combined-cycle gasfired plants.
So policymakers keep juggling taxes and subsidies to try to get the market to choose
what they want. But meanwhile the market is shifting away from all central power stations. For
example, let's assume that windpower costs slightly more than the median for the past eight
years' U.S. installations. Let's include its delivery cost too, of course, and add more than theactual cost of "firming" the windpower so it's fully dispatchable whether the wind is blowing
or not. Even if we took away its Production Tax Credit, smaller than the subsidies to coal andnuclear, windpower would still beat their cost. But they're becoming costlier while windturbines' cost trends downward, and indeed the cheapest windfarms already cost less than theindustry projection for five years from now.
Generally cheaper still is cogeneration-whether it's the normal industrial kind, or"trigeneration" of electricity, heating, and cooling in a building, or cogeneration from recovered
industrial waste heat. Cheapest of all is end-use efficiency, which typically costs 1¢/kWh orless for industrial and commercial retrofits, up to a few ¢/kWh if you're not as skillful or also
retrofit houses, and if you're very skillful in new installations or even for many retrofits, lessthan zero.
69

Comparing all these ways to save or make electricity, we can see why investors arelosing their old enthusiasm for central stations: they simply cost too much. But the cheaper
alternatives also offer better climate solutions. For example, based on the MIT numbers, you
can make and deliver one new nuclear kWh for just ten U.S. cents. That nuclear kWh candisplace one kWh of coal-fired electricity, helping to protect the climate. But if you'd spent thesame money on distributed renewables, cogeneration, or efficiency instead, you'd displace twoto ten times as much coal-fired electricity, and you'd do so faster. If climate is a problem, wemust invest judiciously, not indiscriminately, to get the most solution per ¥ and the mostsolution per year. Buying anything costlier and slower will only reduce and retard the climate
solution we need.
Of course, there's always a risk that any energy investment will be failure, like a "dryhole" when drilling for oil. So what can we learn from actual market behavior? An encouraging
example comes from California during 1982-1985, when all ways to make or save electricity
could compete on a fairly level playing-field. During those four years, California's utilities
bought or were firmly offered electrical savings and new decentralized supply (mainly
renewables) totaling 143% of their total peak demand! The bidding had to be stopped, because
in another year the power glut would have forced the shutdown of all the fossil-fueled andnuclear plants (which in hindsight might not have been such a bad idea). Thus letting everythingcompete will probably yield too many attractive options, not too few̶all the more so withtoday's far more powerful and cost-effective technologies.
Those alternatives are also extremely large. For example, the U.S. potential for electric
efficiency is 2-3 or 4 times nuclear power's output, but costs less than just running a coal or
nuclear plant, even if building it costs nothing. Cogeneration can profitably provide a fifth of
U.S. electricity from industry, still more from buildings. On-and nearshore windpower has apractical potential in the U.S. and in China that's over twice total electricity use; in Britain, six
times; worldwide, using newer data at 80 meters hub height, about 35 times just from windy
areas. Other renewables are even larger. And contrary to a widespread misconception,
windpower and solar power don't need impractical amounts of land nor big investments inelectricity storage. Diverse, dispersed, but variable solar power and windpower that are forecast
and integrated into the grid will actually need less storage or backup than utilities have alreadyinstalled to cope with the intermittence of their big thermal plants.
Slide 28 - Meanwhile, a wide range of renewable sources is getting inexorably cheaper, andmany are also likely to show discontinuous, "leapfrog" technological progress like the red
examples I've added to these U.S. Government projections. And decentralized resources'
economic advantage increases by typically about another tenfold when their 207 "distributed
benefits," mainly from financial economics and electrical engineering, are properly counted(www.smallisprofitable.org).
Even seemingly costly renewable energy also becomes often cost-effective today whenproperly integrated with efficient use. For example, a California prison installed 1.2 hectaresof photovoltaics on its roof. But first making the roof white (to reject solar heat) and the jail's
70lights, fans, and air conditioners more efficient reduced demand, so on the hot afternoons
when the solar cells produce the most electricity, the jail has the most surplus to sell back to
the grid at the best price. Thus this $9-million project, of which the state reimbursed $5 million
through subsidies, would have been very profitable even without them, because over 25 years,
it yielded $15 million of benefits. The same logic becomes even stronger with distributed
generators cheaper than photovoltaics, and at the scale of a house. My own household, using
an average of about 120 watts, is entirely powered by 3m2 of photovoltaics, which-installedwith inverter and batteries-cost slightly less than connecting to the utility wires 30m away,even if the saved electricity were worth zero. Today's state-of-the-art technology could reduce
my home's usage to only about 40 watts, powered by 1m2 of photovoltaics, which would costless than connecting to wires that were already on the side of my house and filled with freeelectricity. That is, an extremely efficient house can reduce to zero the breakeven distancebeyond which it's cheaper to use solar power than to connect to the grid.
Thus efficient use, micropower, and substitutes for oil are all revolutionizing the way
we get the services now provided by electricity and by oil. These profound market shifts aregood for both climate and security. They profitably protect the Earth's climate, far faster andmore effectively than other methods. Smarter choices can also free up huge energy investments
to help finance other development needs. For example, building a compact fluorescent lamp
factory in Mumbai or a superwindow coating factory in Bangkok needs roughly a thousand
times less capital, repaid ten times faster, than supplying more electricity from central plants
to run inefficient lamps and air conditioners to provide the same light and comfort. This
~10,000-fold reduction in the capital needed by the power sector, which now gobbles about
one-fourth of global development capital, offers unique macroeconomic leverage for global
development.
These innovations can also make energy no longer a source of conflict, corruption, andautocracy, but rather a powerful path to peace, transparency, and democracy. It can maketoday's brittle energy systems resilient, so major failures now inevitable by design (and easily
caused by malice) become impossible by design. And taking seriously the verdict of the global
marketplace can stop the main cause of the spread of nuclear bombs to such countries as Iranand North Korea. As I explained in Foreign Affairs magazine in summer 1980, civilian nuclear
power makes widely available, in innocent-looking civilian disguise, the materials, equipment,
knowledge, and skills for do-it-yourself bomb kits. But without today's big nuclear commerce,
obtaining those ingredients would be harder, more conspicuous, and more politically costly,
because the intention would unambiguously be to make bombs, not electricity. This unmasking
would not make proliferation impossible, but would make it far more difficult and likely to be
noticed in time, because intelligence resources could be concentrated on needles, not haystacks.
Both our countries' leadership right now is vital to global security. If the United States
claims that despite all its wealth, technological prowess, and fuel resources, it needs nuclear
power, it invites all countries lacking those advantages to draw the same conclusion. Conversely,
if Japan, already the world leader in solar power and in some forms of energy efficiency, showsthat despite having no fuels, its further efficiency potential and renewables could power its
advanced industrial economy, then no other country could claim it cannot do likewise. Indeed,71

by offering wide access for developing countries to the same inherently nonviolent technologies
we'd be adopting for ourselves, the U.S. and Japan could even return to the original purpose of
Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty-access to affordable energy for development. Our
two nations, intertwined by fate in the only uses so far of these horrible weapons, could now
join by choice to expose and penalize their proliferators. This would greatly lessen the risk thatthey will once again be used, while also helping fair global development and protecting theclimate.
In short, using energy in a way that saves money can eliminate the supposed need tochoose between dying by climate change, by oil wars, or by nuclear holocaust. All thosechoices are unnecessary and uneconomic.
So let me summarize how I see Japan's energy achievements and opportunities. Japan's
industrial efficiency ranges from #1 in the world to more ordinary; even the best sectors andfirms can make considerable further improvements. Japan's energy use in households andtransport has more than doubled since 1970, including a doubling for trucks and more than a
6-fold increase for passenger cars. All the cars and trucks on the road have average efficiencies
far below the best export models, so at least doubled efficiency is quickly and cheaply available.
The biggest opportunities are in the rather inefficient stock of buildings, which need both mass
retrofits and stronger efforts toward full adoption of highly integrated superefficient equipment
and design. Japan is pioneering some excellent policy instruments, like "Top Runner," but itwould be helpful to emphasize price less than ability to respond to price, via comprehensive
barrier-busting. The most important reform would be to reward distributors of electricity andgas for cutting your bill, not for selling you more energy. And in a country obviously poor in
fuels but astonishingly rich in renewable energy potential, the biggest barrier to fully exercising
Japan's extraordinary opportunity for energy leadership is simply not realizing that theopportunities for efficiency and renewables are as large as they really are: more than large
enough to power the whole country, more securely and more cheaply than present arrangements.
So what are we waiting for? We are the people we have been waiting for. And Japan is
the leader the world is waiting for.
If anything I have said seems too good to be true, please remember Marshall McLuhan'sremark that "Only puny secrets need protection. Great discoveries are protected by public
incredulity."
It's your move.
Thank you for your kind attention.

72

Slide 1
U.S. energy/GDP already cut 48%, to very nearly the 1976
"soft path".

Slide 2
U.S./Japan energy: different prices; other similarities are
more important than differences.

Slide 32007 McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) Potential for Abating
Global Greenhouse Gases (Technically Very Conservative)73

Slide 4
Two "Different but Likely" Japanese Societies in 2050

Slide 5NIES 2050 Japan Energy Scenarios

Slide 6The climate problem is caused by one percentage point.

74

Slide 7
So could the vision of contraction & convergence be feasible
and profitable?

Slide 8
An All-too-common Belief

Slide 9Per Capita Electricity Consumption

CA
NY
US
TX
Japan

75

Slide 10
U.S. cars & light trucks were long the least efficient, but
Japan's have become similar.

Slide 11
– 44 to + 46˚C with No Heating/Cooling Equipment, Less
Construction Cost

Slide 12
Old Design Mentality: always diminishing returns…

76

Slide 13
New Design Mentality:
Expanding Returns, "tunneling through the cost barrier" 1

Slide 14
New Design Mentality:
Expanding Returns, "tunneling through the cost barrier" 2

Slide 15
Compounding losses…or savings…so start saving at thedownstream end to multiply the fuel and equipment savings
upstream77

Slide 16
It's often remarkably simple.

Slide 17
High-efficiency Pumping / Piping Retrofit

Slide 18
A Profitable U.S. Transition beyond Oil78

Slide 19
Each day, a typical car uses 〜 100 its weight in ancient plants.
Where does that fuel energy go?

Slide 20Three Technology Paths:
Aluminum, Light Steels, Carbon Composites (the Strongest& Lightest)

Slide 21
The Oil Industry's Conventional Wisdom:
Approximate Long-run Supply Curve for World Crude Oiland Substitute Fossil-fuel Supplies

79

Slide 22
How that supply curve stretches 〜
3 Tbbl if the U.S. potential shown in Winning the Oil Endgame scales, very approximately, to the world

Slide 23
Stretching oil supply curve 〜 3 Tbbl averts >1 trillion
tonnes of carbon emissions

Slide 24
Efficiency is a rapidly moving target.

80

Slide 25
1989 Supply Curve for Saveable US Electricity (vs. 1986
Frozen Efficiency)

Slide 26
Electric shock: low-/no-carbon decentralized sources
are eclipsing central stations.

Slide 27
Central Power Stations' Fatal Competitors

81

Slide 28
Renewable Energy Cost Trends82

Major Publications
Dr. Amory B. Lovins
Energy Policy (General)
Energy: Some Constraints and Opportunities, Ambio 3(3/4):123–125 (Jan 1974), www.jstor.org/pss/4312064
World Energy Strategies: Facts, Issues, and Options, May–Jun 1974 Bull. atom. Scient. serialization available
in Google Books; World Energy Strategies-Reply, id., 30:2–3 (1974); Ballinger/FOE (Cambridge/SF), 1975
(nominated for National Book Award), Harper & Row (NY), 1979, ≥1 translation.
Energy strategy, letter, Nature 247:332 (8 Feb 1974).
Energy for fertilizer (reply letter), Bull. atom. Scient. 31:2–3 (May 1975).
Nitrogen fixation, letter, Nature 255:8 (1 May 1975),
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v255/n5503/pdf/255008c0.pdf.
Exploring Energy-Efficient Futures for Canada, Conserver Society Notes 1(4), May/Jun 1976, Science Council of
Canada (Ottawa).
Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken?, For. Aff. 55(1):65–96 (1976), RMI Publ. #E77-01,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken, and letters, For. Aff. 55(3):636 (1977),
55(4):891 (1977).
Energy: The ‘Soft Path’, letter, Science 196:1384–1385 (24 Jun 1977).
Lovins on ‘Lovins’ Fever,’ letter, Science 197:1133 (16 Sep 1977).
Soft Energy Paths, letter, Power Engineering 81:142 (1977).
Scale, Centralization and Electrification in Energy Systems, at pp. 88–171 in Future Strategies for Energy
Development: A Question of Scale, 20–21 Oct 1976 symposium, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, 1977.
Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace, Ballinger/FOE (Cambridge/SF), 1977, Pelican (UK), 1977, Harper &Row (NY), 1979, ≥5 translations.
Ca. 35 responses to critiques of Foreign Affairs article supra, in U.S. Senate Select Committee on Small Business
and Committee on Interior & Insular Affairs, Alternative Long-Range Energy Strategies, 2 vols., US GPO,
1977, and The Energy Controversy: Soft Path Questions and Answers, H. Nash, ed., FOE (SF), 1979.
Cost-Risk-Benefit Assessments in Energy Policy, Geo. Wash. Law Rev. 45(5):911–943 (1977).
Soft energy paths, letter, Nature 271:107–108 (12 Jan 1978).
Soft Energy Technologies, Ann. Rev. En. 3:477–517 (1978),www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.eg.03.110178.002401.
Soft Energy Path, Center Magazine 11:32–45 (1978).
Lovins on Energy Costs, letter, Science 201:1077–1078å (22 Sep 1978).
Re-Examining the Nature of the ECE Energy Problem, En. Pol. 7:178–198 (1979).
Energy: Bechtel Cost Data, letter, Science 204:124–130 (13 Apr 1979).
Energy Demand Forecasts, letter, Science 210:480 (31 Oct 1980).
Exchanges with A.M. Weinberg, The Sciences [NY Acad. of Scis.] 21, October 1979, and 12, February 1980, andWharton Magazine 68, Winter 1980.
Energy: What’s the Problem?, Ecologist 11(6):302–313 (1981), with L.H. Lovins.
Expansio ad Absurdum, En. J. 2(4):25 (1981).
The Electricity Industry, letter, Science 229:914–916 (6 Sep 1985).
Study Guide for 16mm Bullfrog film Lovins on the Soft Path, 1985, RMI Publ. #E85-27.
Comments on Dept. of the Interior DEIS (ANWR Coastal Plain Resource Assessment), 22 Jan 1987, RMI Publ.
#S87-2.
Impending Energy Crisis?, letter, Science 236:764 (15 May 1987), RMI Publ. #E87-10.
Response to API Critique on ANWR Oil and Gas Leasing, 16 Apr 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-5.
Oil-Risk Insurance: Choosing the Best Buy, GAO J., Jun 1988, U.S. Genl. Acctg. Office, RMI Publ. #S88-26.
Energy, People, and Industrialization, 1989, in K. Davis & M.S. Bernstam, eds., Resources, Environment, andPopulation/Pop. Devel. Rev. 16s, Population Council (NY), 1991, RMI Publ. #E89-1.
Energy Options, letter, Science, 243:12 (6 Jan 1989), RMI Publ. #E89-2.
Abating Air-Pollution at Negative Cost via Energy Efficiency, J. Air & Waste Mgt. Assn. (JACPA) 39:1432–1435(1989), RMI Publ. #E89-33 (original ver. 27 Oct 1987, #E89-13).

83

Making Markets in Resource Efficiency, in E.U. v. Weizsäcker Festschrift, 25 Jun 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-27.
End-Use/Least-Cost Investment Strategies, World En. Conf. #2.3.1, pp. 329–344, Montréal, 1989, RMI Publ.
#E89-35 (Summary #E89-35A).
Abating Air Pollution at Negative Cost, Env. Profl. 12:164 (1990), RMI Publ. #E89-33.
Meeting the Challenges of the 1990s, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/RED-91-66, pp. 38–56, Mar 1991,
RMI Publ. #E91-13.
Drill Rigs and Battleships Are the Answer! (But What Was the Question?), Ch. 7 of The Oil Market in the 1980’s:
Challenges for a New Era (Reed & Fesharaki, eds., Westview, Boulder CO), 1991, RMI Publ. #S91-5 (formerly#S88-6), www.rmi.org/images/other/Security/S91-15_DrillRigsBattleships.pdf.
Feebates, widely circulated memorandum, 6 Jul 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-21.
Viewpoints exchange with Dr. Chauncey Starr, Coal Voice, pp. 10–15, May/Jun 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-31.
Presentation in Meeting the Energy Challenges of the 1990s, GAO/RCED-91-66, USGAO (Washington DC), 1991.
Feebates, widely circulated memorandum, 6 July 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-21.
Fueling a Competitive Economy, with J.J. Romm (sr. au.), For. Aff. 72(5):46–60 (Winter 1992/3), RMI Publ. #S931, www.foreignaffairs.org/19921201faessay5902/joseph-j-romm-amory-b-lovins/fueling-a-competitive-economy.
html; response id. 72:213–214 (1993).
Test. to Intl. Hrg. on Final Disposal of Nucl. Waste (Niedersächs. Umweltministerium, Hannover), 23 Sept. 1993.
Is Oil Running Out?, Science 282:48–49 (2 Oct 1998), RMI Publ. #E98-5, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E98-05_
IsOilRunningOut , summarized in Solar Today, p. 50, July/Aug. 1999.
Fueling the 21st Century: The New Economy of Energy, with C. Lotspeich, J. Intl. Affairs 53(1):191–208, Fall 1999,
RMI Publ. #E99-16, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E99-16_EnergySuprises21stCentury [sic].
An Eight-Fold Way Towards Faster Energy Efficiency, Procs. Summer Study Eur. Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy (Mandelieu, France), 12 Jun 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-07, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-07_
EightFoldWayEnergyEfficiency.
Natural capitalism: new frontiers for chemical engineering, with L.H. Lovins, The Chem. Engr. 716:36–38 (2001)(Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK).
Energy Surprises for the 21st Century, with C. Lotspeich, J. Intl. Affairs 53(1):215–232 (Fall 1999).
Exchanges with Mark Mills about electricity use by Internet, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-MMABLInternet.pdf.
Profiting from a Nuclear-Free Third Millennium, Power Ecs., 2000, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-ProfitNukeFree.pdf.
Fool’s Gold in Alaska (originally titled The Alaskan Threat to National Energy Security), with L.H. Lovins, For. Aff.
80(4):72–85 (Jul/Aug 2001),www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-03_FoolsGoldAlaska (as-published version RMI
Publ.#E01-03,annotatedversion#E01-4);update,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-04_FoolsGoldAlaskaAnnotated;
Fuzzy Math, response to Feb 2002 letter from Prof. Platt,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-11_FuzzyMath.
Expert Group Report (convenor), National Energy Policy Initiative, Feb 2002,
www.nepinitiative.org/expertreport.html, RMI Publ. #E02-4.
Accelerating Renewables: Expanding the Policy and Marketing Toolkit, keynote, American Renewable Energy
Council, Jul 2002, RMI Publ. #E02-07,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-07_AcceleratingRenewables.
Strength Through Exhaustion, or Design for Resilience? A Guest Column-Homeland Energy Security, Pipeline &Gas Journal 8(230):14–15, 1 Aug 2003, www.oildompublishing.com/pgj/pgjarchive/aug03/hub.pdf.
Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and Security, with K.E. Datta, O.-E. Bustnes, J.G. Koomey,& N.J. Glasgow, forewords by George Shultz and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, 329 pp., Sep 2004,
www.oilendgame.com.
Follow-up to Oral Testimony to USHR Commerce Committee to Examine the Rise of Domestic Energy Prices,
2005,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2005-10_OralTestimonyFollowUp.
Getting Off Oil: Recent Leaps and Next Steps, RMI Solns. J., spring 2008, RMI Publ. #E08-2,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-02_GettingOffOilRecentLeaps.
Preface to the Chinese Edition of Winning the Oil Endgame (Shí yóu bó yì jie3 kùn shi1 dào, Tsinghua U. Press,
RMI Publ. #E08-3, 2008/9), in English at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-03_ChineseWTOEPreface.
Bioconversion: What’s the right size?, brief to National Research Council Panel on Alternative Liquid Transportation
Fuels, with J.J. Newcomb, 20 Feb 2008.
Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era (with Rocky Mountain Institute colleagues),
Chelsea Green (Vermont), in press, Oct 2011.

84

Energy Efficiency (Specific)
Foreword to K. Butti & J. Perlin, A Golden Thread: 2500 Years of Solar Architecture and Technology, Van Nostrand
Reinhold (NY), 1979.
University Budget Cuts, Science 220:666 (1983), with L.H. Lovins.
Technical testimonies, many book-length, to public utility commissions of CO, DC (twice), IL, MA, ME, NH, NM,
NV (twice), TX, and WI, and to the U.S. Congress.
Scoping Calculation of Electrical Savings in a Pulp-and-Paper Mill, 1985 testimony to Maine Land Use Regulatory
Commission, RMI Publ. #E85-4.
Public summary of analysis of advanced household appliances, 14 Apr 1985, RMI Publ. #E85-12.
The State of the Art: Lighting, with R. Sardinsky, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1988
} [Dr. Lovins wrote
The State of the Art: Drivepower, 1st of 6 authors, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1989
} all of these books,
The State of the Art: Appliances, 2nd of 5 authors, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1990
} but as a courtesy,
The State of the Art: Water Heating, 3rd of 4 authors, RMI/COMPETITEK,1991} listed some co-reThe State of the Art: Space Cooling and Air Handling, 3rd of 6 aus., RMI/COMPETITEK, 1992 } searchers first]
Financing Electric End-Use Efficiency, with M. Shepard, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1988.
Energy Savings Resulting from the Adoption of More Efficient Appliances, En. J. 9(2):155–162 (1988), RMI Publ.
#E88-12.
Customer Behavior and Information Programs, with M. Shepard, RMI/COMPETITEK, 1989.
The ‘Negawatt’ Revolution: New Technologies for Electric Efficiency, Site Selection 35(6):1387–1393 (1990).
(Industrial Development Research Council), RMI Publ. #E91-2.
If it’s not efficient, it’s not beautiful, Fine Homebuilding, Spring 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-10,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E91-10_NotEfficientNotBeautiful.
Energy Conservation, letter, Science 251:1296–1298 (15 Mar 1991), RMI Publ. #E91-9.
Energy Savings, letter, Science 252:763 (10 May 1991).
Letter on feebates, 6 Jul 1991, RMI Publ. #T91-21.
Antarctic Energy Efficiency, Science letter submitted 24 Dec 1991, RMI Publ. #E92-6.
Efficient Office Technologies, The Outlook and Market, EPRI conference Energy Efficient Office TechnologiesEnergy
Efficient Office Technologies (San Jose), 17 Jun 1992, RMI Publ. #E94-14.
Viewpoint (debate with Dr. Chauncey Starr), Coal Voice, National Coal Association, May/June 1991.
Air Conditioning Comfort: Cultural and Behavioral Aspects, E SOURCE, Boulder CO, SIP-1, 1992.
Energy-Efficient Buildings: Institutional Barriers and Opportunities, E SOURCE, Boulder CO, SIP-2, 1992.
Switched Reluctance Motors Poised for Rapid Growth, with W. Howe, E SOURCE, TU-92-4, Nov 1992.
Address to Energy Efficient Office Technologies, Policy Res. Assocs./EPRI, San Jose, 17 June 1992.
Negawatts for Buildings, with W.D. Browning, Urban Land 51(7):26–29, Jul 1992, RMI Publ. #D92-22,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/D92-22_NegawattsForBuildings.
Vaulting the Barriers to Green Architecture, with W.D. Browning (sr. au.), Arch. Rec., p. 16, Dec 1992, uncut text
in RMI Publ. #D93-6.
Inexpensive Ways to Save Electricity, letter, Technol. Rev. 96:7 (1993).
What an Energy-Efficient Computer Can Do, RMI Publ. #E93-20, 10 Aug / 10 Oct 1993,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E93-20_EnergyEfficientComputer.
The Cost of Energy Efficiency, letter, Science 261:969–970 (20 Aug 1993).
The Super-Efficient Passive Building Frontier, summ. ASHRAE Centenary Address, ASHRAE J. 37(6):79–81, Jun
1995, RMI Publ. #E95-28, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E95-28_SuperEfficientPassiveBuilding.
Better buildings by design: overcoming barriers to efficiency, Strat. Plng. En. Envt. 14:45–50 (1995).
Energy efficiency, letter, Technol. Rev. 98:8–9 (1995).
East Meets West: Holistic Design for Sustainable Buildings, Forword to Japan Inst. of Architects, Sustainable
Design Guide, vol. 2, 1996 (bilingual edn. is RMI #D96-3; corrected English edition also available from RMI),
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/D96-03_JapaneseArchitectsDesignGuide.
Foreword to G. Franta, K. Anstead, & G.D. Ander, Glazing Design: Handbook for Energy Efficiency, AIA, 1997.
Negawatts for Fabs, Stanford/NSF/SRC/SEMATECH tech. sympos. keynote, 6 Aug 1998, RMI Publ. #E98-3,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E98-03_NegawattsForFabs.
On the rebound, letter, New Scientist 160(2155):52, 10 Oct 1998.
Foreword to U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Sustainable Planning: A Multi-Service Assessment 1999.
Letter to Forbes about its erroneous report on Internet electricity use, 27 Jun 1999, RMI Publ. #E99-17.

85

Exchange between Mark Mills and Amory Lovins about the electricity used by the Internet, 14 Sep 1999, RMI
Publ. #E99-18.
Response to Andrew Rudin, Publ. Utils. Fortnightly, 1 May 2003, RMI Publ. #E03-10.
Rocky Mountain Institute Visitors’ Guide, 2004, RMI Publ. #H04-03, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/NC07-12; virtual
tour at www.rmi.org/rmi/Amory%27s+Private+Residence; some Aug 2009 video and discussion is at online.
wsj.com/article/SB124959929532112633.html#articleTabs%3Dinteractive (but see lower part of p 4 of posted
comments, correcting some fundamental errors in the reportage).
Energy Efficiency: A Taxonomic Overview, Encycl. of Energy 2:383–401, Elsevier, March 2004 (also on its
Editorial Advisory Board), RMI Publ. #E04-02, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E04-02_EnergyEfficiencyTaxono
micOverview.
Energy End-Use Efficiency, white paper commissioned by S. Chu for study Transitions to Sustainable Energy
Systems, InterAcademy Council (Amsterdam, a consortium of ~90 national academies of science), 19 Sep
2005, RMI Publ. #E05-16, www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-16_EnergyEndUseEff.pdf.
Energy Myth Nine-Energy Efficiency Improvements Have Already Reached Their Potential, pp. 239–263 in B.K.
Sovacool & M.A. Brown, eds., Energy and American Society-Thirteen Myths, Springer, 2007.
Reply to Charles Komanoff, Grist, 18CK Dec 2010, www.grist.org/article/2010-12-15-if-efficiency-hasnt-cutenergy-use-then-what/N20/#comments.
Integrative Design
Wanted: Masters of elegant frugality, with I. Sheikh, Chem. Eng. Progr. 102:60–61, Sep. 2006, and letter, Do
engineers optimize properly? Reply, Chem. Eng. Progr. 103:6 (2007) (AIChE).
Save More, Pay Less, with I. Sheikh, tce (The Chemical Engineer) (UK), pp. 24–25,
Sep 2007, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2007-13_SaveMorePayLess.
Advanced Energy Efficiency, five public lectures at Stanford Engineering School, spring 2007,www.rmi.org/rmi/Stanford+Energy+Lectures (also available in Chinese).
Integrative Design: A Disruptive Source of Expanding Returns to Investments in Energy Efficiency, 2010, RMI
Publ. #X10-09, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-09_IntegrativeDesign.
Factor Ten Engineering Design Principles, 2010, RMI Publ. #X10-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/201010_10xEPrinciples.
Amory Lovins’s Integrative Design, interview, pp. 298–310 in W. Berger, Imagine Design Create, Autodesk (SanFrancisco), in press, 2011.
Foreword to A. McGregor, F. Cousins, & C. Roberts, Challene 450: Sustainability and the Built Environment,
Taylor & Francis, in press, 2012.
Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles
Advanced Light Vehicle Concepts, briefing notes for U.S. National Research Council, 9 Jul / 3 Aug 1991, RMI
Publ. #T91-20.
Supercars: The Coming Light-Vehicle Revolution, with J.W. Barnett & L.H. Lovins, Procs. Summer Study Eur.
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (Rungstedgård, Denmark), 1–5 Jun 1993, RMI Publ. #T93-30.
‘Zero Emission’ Vehicles Aren’t, El. J. 6(5):2–3, Jun 1993, RMI Publ. #U93-17.
Supercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, with J.W. Barnett & L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #T93-16, 11 August 1993,
revised and retitled Hypercars:…, 11 August 1993, revised 26 February 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-19.
Policy Implications of Supercars, with J.W. Barnett & L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #T93-21, August 1993.
Why Battery Electric Cars Are Inferior to Hybrids, letter to Solar Mind & EV News, 12 Feb 1994, RMI Publ. #T9413.
Advanced Ultralight Hybrids: Necessity and Practicality of a Leapfrog, Vice President’s Automotive Technology
Symposium #3, Structural Challenges for the Next Generation Vehicle, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 22–23 Feb
1995, RMI Publ. #T95-18.
Vehicle Design Strategies to Meet and Exceed PNGV Goals, with T.C. Moore (sr. au.), SAE951906, Society ofAutomotive Engineers (Warrenton PA), 4 Aug 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-27, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-27_
VehicleDesignStrategies.
Moving Toward a New System, in Building the E-motive Industry, Society of Automotive Engineers R-148(Warrenton PA), 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-33, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-33_MovingTowardNewSystem.
Hypercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, pp. 77–96, 1993 Asilomar Conference, Transportation and Energy:

86Strategies for a Sustainable Transpn. System, Amer. Counc. for an Energy-Efft. Economy (Washington D.C.),
1995, RMI Publ. #T95-30, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-35_CostingUltraliteVolumeProduction.
Hypercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, p. 77, Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable
Transportation System, ACEEE (Washington D.C.), 1995.
Moving Toward a New System, p. 30, in Building the E-motive Industry, SAE R-148, 1995.
Supercars: Advanced Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles, in Encyc. En. Technol. & Envt., 1st edn., Wiley-Interscience, 1995,
RMI Publ. #T95-34.
Costing the Ultralite in Volume Production: Can Advanced Composite Bodies-in-White Be Affordable?, with sr.
coaus. A.E. Mascarin, J.R. Dieffenbach, M.M. Brylawski, & D.R. Cramer, Procs. 1995 Intl. Body Eng. Conf.
& Expos. (Detroit), 31 Oct–2 Nov 1995, RMI Publ. #T95-35.
Ultralight weight hybrids-the coming revolution, El. & Hybrid Veh. Technol. 1995, p. 43, RMI Publ. #T95-38.
Ultralight-Hybrid Vehicle Design: Overcoming the Barriers to Using Advanced Composites in the Automotive
Industry, with M.M. Brylawski (sr. au.), Procs. 41st Ann. Soc. Adv. Mater. & Process Eng. (SAMPE) Sympos. & Exhib.
(Anaheim), 25–28 Mar 1996, RMI Publ. #T95-39, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T95-39_UltralightHVDesignBarriers.
Hypercars: Materials, Manufacturing, and Policy Implications, RMI Publ. T95-17, and 2nd edn., T96-7, with M.M.
Brylawski, D.R. Cramer, & T.C. Moore, 2 vols., 559 pp., RMI Publ. #T95-17 (front matter #T96-7); reviewed
by R. Cumberford, By Design, Automobile, 11(7/8), Oct./Nov. 1996, RMI Publ. #T96-13.
Hypercars: The Next Industrial Revolution, Procs. 13th El. Veh. Sympos. (EVS-13) (Osaka), 14 Oct 1996, RMI Publ.
#T96-9, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T96-09_HypercarNextRevolution.
Speeding the Transition: Designing a Fuel-Cell Hypercar, with B.D. Williams & T.C. Moore (sr. aus.), Procs. 8th
Ann. U.S. Hydrogen Mtg. Natl. Hydr. Assn. (Arlington VA), 11–13 Mar 1997, RMI Publ. #T97-9,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T97-09_DesigningFuelCellHypercar.
Auto Bodies Lighten Up, letter with M.M. Brylawski & D.R. Cramer, Technol. Rev., 100:7–9, May/Jun 1997, RMI
Publ. #T97-10.
Letter responding to A Practical Road to Lightweight Cars, Technol. Rev., pp. 7–8, May/June 1997.
Advanced Composites: The Car Is At the Crossroads, w/ M.M. Brylawski (sr. au.), Procs. 43rd Ann. Soc. Adv. Mater.
& Process Eng. Sympos. & Exhib. (SAMPE) (Anaheim), 31 May–4 Jun 1998, SAMPE J. 35(2):25–36 (1999),
RMI Publ. #T98-1, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T98-01_CarAtCrossroads.
Hypercar has repairs all fixed up, letter, The Engineer 288:8–9 (1999) (London).
FreedomCar, Hypercar®, and Hydrogen, lead industry-panel testimony to USHR Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, 26 Jun 2002, RMI Publ. #T02-6, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T02-06_
FreedomCARHyperCarHydrogen.
Hypercars®, hydrogen, and the automotive transition (with D.R. Cramer), Intl. J. Veh. Design 35(1/2):50–85, 2004,
RMI Publ. #T04-01, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T04-01_HypercarsHydrogenAutomotiveTransition.
Reforming the Automobile Fuel Economy Standards Program, 26 Apr 2004 comments to NHTSA rulemaking,
RMI Publ. #T04-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T04-06_CommentAmericanSocietyHydrogenReport.
Reinventing the Wheels, Envtl. Health Persps. 113:A218-A219 (2005).
Comments to NHTSA on Revised Light-Truck CAFE Standards, 22 Nov 2005, RMI Publ. #T05-13,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T05-13_LetterNHTSA.
Transformational Trucks: Determining the Energy Efficiency limits of a Class-8 Tractor-Trailer, with sr. coaus. M.
Ogburn and L. Ramroth, 2008, RMI Publ. #T08-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T08-08_TransformationalTruc
ksEnergyEfficiency.
Ultralight Vehicles: Non-Linear Correlations Between Weight and Safety, with sr. coau. K. Chan-Lizardo andcoaus. L. Schewel and M. Simpson, Intl. Crashworthiness Conf., Washington D.C. 22–24 Sep 2010.
Reinventing the Wheels, Ch. 18 in A. Parr & M. Zaretsky, eds., New Directions in Sustainable Design, pp. 207–218(with author’s update note on p. 218), Routledge (London), 2011.
Hydrogen Economy (See also Ultralight Hybrid Vehicles)
A Strategy for the Hydrogen Transition, with B.D. Williams, Procs. 10th Ann. U.S. Hydrogen Mtg. Natl. Hydr. Assn.,
8 Apr 1999, RMI Publ. #T99-7, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T99-07_StrategyHydrogenTransition.
Fuel cells for cars, Sci. Amer. letter, p. 8, Nov 1999.
Hypercars, Hydrogen, and Distributed Utilities: Disruptive Technologies and Gas-Industry Strategy, Amer. Gas
Assn. Ops. & Mktg. Conf. (Denver), 9 May 2000, RMI Publ. #E00-25.
Hypercars: Uncompromised Vehicles, Disruptive Technologies, and the Rapid Transition to Hydrogen, CWC

87

Associates conference Redefining the Global Automotive Industry: Technologies and Fuels for the Future(Washington D.C.), 16 Jun 2000, RMI Publ. #T00-26, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T0026_HypercarsUncompromisedVehicles.
Twenty Hydrogen Myths, Jul 2003, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E03-05_TwentyHydrogenMyths, widely linked,
accepted by Intl. J. Hydrog. En. when updated, RMI Publ. #E03-05.
Hydrogen: The Future of Energy, Given Inst. Lecture, Aspen, RMIQ, 6 Aug 2003, RMI Publ. #E03-09.
Hydrogen Economy: Not So Difficult-Without Nuclear Power, Aug 2003, RMI Publ. #E03-06.
Is Hydrogen Hazardous? Two Views, letter, APS News 9(8) (Aug/Sep 2000), Am. Phys. Soc.
www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200008/letters.cfm.
Assessing the Future Hydrogen Economy, letter, Science 302:226–227 (10 Oct 2003), RMI Publ. #E03-1; further
exchange (posted in Science online) included in RMI Publ. #E03-02, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E03-02_
ScienceLetterTrompRebuttal.
Comment on the American Physical Society Hydrogen Report, Physics & Society, Jul 2004, RMI Publ. #T04-06,
www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2004/july/commentary.html.
Electric Utility Policy and Economics (omitting ~10 other utility-commission testimonies)
Electric Utility Investments: Excelsior or Confetti?, J. Bus. Admin. 12(2):91–114 (Vancouver, 1981).
Electric Utilities: Key to Capitalizing the Energy Transition, Technol. Forec. & Soc. Change 22(2):153–166 (Oct1982), correction 23:211 (1983).
Renewable Energy, letter, IEEE Spectrum 19:8, 12 (1982).
Testimony to USHR Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 8
Feb 1984, on Long-Term Demand for Electricity, RMI Publ. #U84-21.
Testimony to USHR Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 26
Jun 1984, on HR5766, Regional Conservation and Electric Power and Regulatory Coordination Act of 1984,
RMI Publ. #U84-22.
Least-Cost, Reliable Electrical Services as an Alternative to Seabrook, testimony to New Hampshire PUC, Docket#84-200, 15 Oct 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-19.
Least-Cost Alternatives to the Malakoff Lignite Plant, testimony to PUC of Texas for City of Houston, Docket#5779, 7 Dec 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-20.
Rebuttal Testimony to DC PSC for Office of the People’s Counsel, 12 Aug 1985, RMI Publ. #U85-28.
Least-Cost Electricity Strategies for Wisconsin: Practical Opportunities to Save Over a Billion Dollars a Year,
1985 testimony to Wisconsin PSC, Exh. 33, Docket #05-EP-4.
Least-Cost Electrical Services as an Alternative to the Braidwood Project, testimony to Illinois CommerceCommission, Dockets #82-0855 and 83-0045, Jul 1985, RMI Publ. #U85-9.
Testimony to PUC of Nevada (Nevada Power Docket #84-724), RMI Publ. #U85-19.
Should Utilities Promote Energy Conservation?, El. Potential 86(2):3 (1986), RMI Publ. #U86-7.
Review of OLE transmission Proposal for New Mexico, 18 Jan 1986, RMI Publ. #U86-3.
Negawatts-Rx for Megagoofs, Public Power, pp. 10–16, Mar–Apr 1986, RMI Publ. #U86-5.
Testimony to MA DPU on behalf of Mass. Exec. Office of Energy Resources, 9 Jun 1986, RMI Publ. #U86-16.
Testimony to PSC of Nevada for OCA (Sierra Pacific Docket #86-701), RMI Publ. #U86-18.
Testimony on behalf of DC PSC in PEPCO Rate Case (#834 Phase II), 19 Feb 1987, RMI Publ. #U87-6.
Advanced Electricity-Saving Technologies and the South Texas Project, 2 vols., report to City of Austin Electric
Utility Department, Dec 1986, RMI Publ. #U87-7.
Letter to Scientific American on photovoltaics, responding to Y. Hamakawa, 24 Mar 1987, RMI Publ. #S87-9.
Electricity-Saving Potential of New Orleans Public Service Inc., 7 May 1987, RMI Publ. #U87-15.
Excerpts from an unsolicited letter to a utility CEO, RMI Publ. #U87-29.
Negawatts for Arkansas, report to Gov. Clinton and Arkansas Energy Office, 3 vols., 1988, RMI Publ. #U88-41.
Open Letters Challenge Harvard’s Bidding Proposal, El. J. 2(2):34–40 (Mar 1989), RMI Publ. #U89-15.
Four Revolutions in Electric Efficiency, Contemp. Pol. Iss. (now Contemp. Ec. Pol.) [Western Ec. Assn. Intl.]
8:122–141 (1990), RMI Publ. #E90-28, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1990.tb00649.x/
abstract.
Report to the Minister for Industry and Economic Planning, Victoria, Australia, 30 Nov 1990, RMI Publ. #U91-5.
The Negawatt Revolution: Electric Efficiency and Asian Development, with A. Gadgil, 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-23,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E91-23_NegawattRevolutionElectricEfficiencyAsianDevelopment.

88Testimony to Calif. PUC en banc Hearing, San Francisco, 17 Jan 1993, RMI Publ. #U93-8.
Renewables in Integrated Energy Systems, with D. Yoon, ANZ Solar En. Soc. (Perth), 3 Dec. 1993.
Clarifying Electrotechnologies, letter, El. J. 7(1):3–4 (Feb. 1994), RMI Publ. #U94-10.
Renewables in Integrated Energy Systems, with D. Yoon, ANZ Solar Energy Society Solar ’93 Conference (Perth,Western Australia), 2 Dec 1993, RMI Publ. #E94-12.
Apples, Oranges, and Horned Toads: Is the Joskow & Marron Critique of Electric Efficiency Valid?, El. J. 7(4):29–
49, May 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-16.
Negawatts: Is There Life After the CPUC Order?, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
keynote (Kalispell MT), 16 May 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-17.
Letter testimony to California PUC re R.94-04-031 and I.94-04-032, 22 May 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-18.
Negawatts: Is There Life After the CPUC Order?, keyn. Natl. Assn. Reg. Util. Cmrs. (Kalispell), 16 May 1994.
Testimony to California PUC in Blue Book proceedings, 22 May and 17 Aug. 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-18.
Spotlight on Direct Access Interview, DR Connection, pp. 2–3, Nov 1994, El. Pwr. Res. Inst. (Palo Alto), RMI
Publ. #U94-34.
Energy efficiency, invited commentary, Technol. Rev., p. 8, Aug/Sep 1995, RMI Publ. #U95-24.
Letter of comment to FERC re transmission Mega-NOPR, RMI Publ. #U95-37, 24 Jul 1995,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U95-37_CommentFERC.
Submission to FERC Mega-NOPR proceeding, 24 July 1995, RMI Publ. #U95-37.
Negawatts: Twelve Transitions, Eight Improvements, and One Distraction, En. Pol. 24(4):331–343, Apr 1996 (edn.
without typographic errors is RMI Publ. #U96-11), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U9611_NegawattsTwelveTransitions.
Foreword to E. Smeloff & P. Asmus, Reinventing Electric Utilities: Competition, Citizen Action, and Clean Power,
Island Press, 1996.
Putting Central Power Stations Out of Business, Aspen Energy Forum, 7 July 1998, RMI Publ. #E98-2.
Putting Central Power Plants Out of Business, Aspen Institute Energy Forum, 7 July 1998. RMI Publ. #E98-2.
California Electricity: Facts, Myths, and National Lessons, 22 Jul 2001 Worldwatch address (Aspen), RMI Publ.
#U Efficient Use of Electricity, with A.P. Fickett & C.W. Gellings (sr. aus.; ABL wrote ~70%), Sci. Amer.
263(3):64–74 (Sep 1990), 01-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U01-02_CaliforniaElectricityFactsMyths.
Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Distributed Generation (and Other Distributed Resources),
Australian EcoGeneration Conf. (Sydney), 13 Mar 2002, RMI Publ. #U01-13, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U0113_SmallIsProfitable.
Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Resources the Right Size, w/coauthors,
Rocky Mountain Institute, Aug 2002, 423 pp., www.smallisprofitable.org; one of The Economist’s top threebusiness/economics books of 2002; Japanese edition from Japan Energy Conservation Center (Tokyo 2005).
Keeping the Lights on While Transforming Electric Utilities, with L. Hansen (sr. au.), RMI Solns. J. 3(1): (Winter2010), RMI Publ. #E10-4, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-04_keepingthelightson.
2010 Micropower Database, with B. Cohen, May and Aug 2010 (updated from 2008 edn.),www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-14_MicropowerDatabaseSeptember2010.
Renewables, Micropower, and the Transforming Electricity Landscape, with B. Cohen (sr. au.), RMI Solns. J. 3(2),(Spring), June 2010, www.rmi.org/rmi/RenewablesMicropowerTransformingElectricityLandscape.
Renewable Energy’s ‘Footprint’ Myth, El. J. 24(6):40–47, July 2011, doi:10.1016/j.tej.2011.06.005.
Nuclear Power and Health Physics
The Case Against the Fast Breeder Reactor, Bull. atom. Scient. 29:29–35 (Mar 1973).
Nuclear power: technical bases for ethical concern, 1974 (evidence to Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution), 1975 (2nd edn.), Friends of the Earth Ltd for Earth Resources Ltd (London).
Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy, with J.H. Price, Ballinger/FOE (Cambridge/SF),
1975, Harper & Row (NY), 1979.
Nuclear energy, Am. Scient. 63:4 (1975).
Plutonium particles: some like them hot, with W.C. Patterson, Nature 254:278 (1975).
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1975-01_PlutoniumParticles.
Plutonium and other actinides, book review, Nature 265:390 (1977),
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v265/n5592/pdf/265390b0.pdf.
Out of the frying-pan into the PWR, Nature 271:2 (5 Jan 1978), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1978-01_FryingPanPWR

89

or www.nature.com/nature/journal/v271/n5640/pdf/271002a0.pdf.
Comments on the 10/78 Draft IRG Report to the President (TID-28817 draft), memo to the Interagency Review
Group on Nuclear Waste Management, 1978.
Fission not the method, Bull. atom. Scient. 34:62–63 (Nov 1978).
Is Nuclear Power Necessary?, Energy Paper No. 3, Friends of the Earth (London), 1979.
The Origins of the Nuclear Power Fiasco, En. Pol. Studies [U. of Delaware] 3:7 (1986), RMI Publ. #E86-29, www.
rmi.org/rmi/Library/1986-01_OriginsNuclearPowerFiasco.
Chernobyl, Issues in Sci. & Technol. 3:10–11 (Winter 1987), National Academies, RMI Publ. #E86-30.
Nuclear power-for or against?, Pwr. Ecs. 3(9)19–20, Nov 1999.
Profiting from a Nuclear-Free Third Millennium, Pwr. Ecs., 2000, RMI Publ. #E00-19,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E00-19_ProfitingNuclearFreeMillenium
Profiting from a Nuclear-Free Third
Millennium, Power Ecs., 2000, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-ProfitNukeFree.pdf Profiting from a NuclearFree Third Millennium, Power Ecs., 2000, www.rmi.org/images/other/E-ProfitNukeFree.pdf.
Why Nuclear Power’s Failure in the Marketplace Is Irreversible (Fortunately for Nonproliferation and Climate
Protection), keynote, 9 Apr 2001 symposium, Nuclear Control Institute, RMI Publ. #S01-1,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-01_NuclearPowerFailureIrreversible, www.nci.org/conf/lovins/lovinstranscript.htm, www.nci.org/conference.htm, www.nci.org/conf/lovins/index.htm, reprinted in Phys. & Soc.
30(4):8–11 (2001), Am. Phys. Soc.
Testimony to International Hearing on Final Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Braunschweig, FRG), 23 Sep 1993, RMI
Publ. #E94-11.
Comment to Nuclear News on MIT study The Future of Nuclear Power, 10 Nov 2004, RMI Publ. #E04-22.
Mighty Mice, Nucl. Eng. Intl., pp. 44–48, 21 Dec 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-15,
www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2033302 or www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-15_MightyMice;the former URL links to an early-2006 exchange with Ian Hore-Lacy (reposted Apr 2010) at
www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056395 andwww.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2056396.
Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation, Committee Workshop,
Calif. En. Comm. Integrated Energy Policy Report 2005, 16 Aug 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-9.
Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential, RMI Publ. #E05-14, 6 Jan 2006,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-14_NuclearPowerEconomicsClimateProtection.
Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate-Protection Potential, Royal Acad. Eng. lecture (London), 13
May 2006, RMI Publ. #E06-04, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-04_NuclearPowerCompetitiveEconomics.
Nuclear Power and Climate Change, exchanges with Prof. S. Berry and P. Bradford, 2007, RMI Publ. #C07-09,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C07-09_NuclearPowerClimateChange.
Forget Nuclear, with I. Sheikh and A. Markevich, RMI Solutions, Apr 2008, RMI Publ. #E08-4,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear.
Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly?, RMI Solns. J. 2(1) (Apr 2008), RMI Publ. #E09-1,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly.
‘New’ Nuclear Reactors, Same Old Story, RMI Solns. J. 3(1):28–31 (Spring 2009), RMI Publ. #E09-7,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-07_NuclearSameOldStory.
Four Nuclear Myths (expanding arguments in popular publication Nuclear Nonsense below), RMI Publ. #E09-9,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths.
The Nuclear Illusion, Ambio (accepted and in production for 2011); preprint of an early draft, RMI Publ. #E08-1,
meanwhile posted by permission at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion.
Nijyuu-isseiki no Soft Energy Path, Gaiko 8:65–73 (Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 2011); unabridged
English text posted July 2011 as U.S. Energy Policy After Fukushima at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-09_
GaikoSoftEnergyPaths.

90

National Security And Nuclear Proliferation (unclassified only)
Nuclear power-energy consumer, letter, Envt. 17:44 (1975).
Convergence, letter, Bull. atom. Scient. 34:4 (May 1978).
Thorium Cycles and Proliferation, Bull. atom. Scient. 35(2):16–22 (1979),
http://books.google.com/books?id=GgsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&dq=Lovins&hl=en&ei=FASxTO6pJoPB
nAf95tWDCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Lovins&f=false, and correspondence, id. 35(5):50 (1979), 35(9):57 (1979).
Nuclear Weapons and Power-Reactor Plutonium, review article, Nature 283:817–823 (28 Feb 1980), RMI Publ.
#S80-1, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S80-01_NuclearWeaponsPowerReactorPlutonium and typographic correction,
284:190 (13 Mar 1980), www.nature.com/nature/journal/v284/n5752/full/284190b0.html.
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs, with L.H. Lovins & L. Ross, For. Aff. 58:1137–1177 (Summer 1980), RMI
Publ. #S80-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S80-02_NuclearPowerNuclearBombs, and 59:172 (1980).
Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link, with L.H. Lovins, FOE (SF), 1980, Harper & Row (NY), 1981 (≥2translations).
Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security, with L.H. Lovins, DOD/CEQ/Brick House (Andover MA),
1982, reposted 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S82-03_BrittlePowerEnergyStrategy (≥1 translation), originallyproduced as Energy policies for resilience and national security: Final report to the Council on Environmental
Quality, Exectuive Office of the President, Washington DC, 1981; RMI 2001 edition in OCR .PDF format (withnew preface at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2001-21_BrittlePowerPreface) scanned from out-of-print 1982 BrickHouse edition, 499 pp.
Reducing Vulnerability: The Energy Jugular, in R.J. Woolsey, ed., Nuclear Arms, Inst. for Contemp. Studies (SanFrancisco), 1983, RMI Publ. #S84-23,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S84-23_ReducingVulnerabilityEnergyJugular.
‘The connection is tenuous,’ Bull. atom. Scient. 39:62–63 (May 1983), with L.H. Lovins.
Building a secure society, Ecologist 14:141–145 (1984), with L.H. Lovins.
Iraq’s nuclear intentions, letter, Bull. atom. Scient. 42:55–56 (Oct 1986).
Cold fusion confusion, letter, Bull. atom. Scient. 45:46–47 (Jun 1989), RMI Publ. #S89-20.
National Energy Strategy Undercuts War Aims, 20 Feb 1991 RMI/NRDC press-conference statement, RMI Publ.
#E91-11.
Lessons from Iraq, letter to Bull. atom. Scient., 9 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #S92-5.
Plutonium Disposition, letter, Phys. & Soc. 23(4):2 (1994), Am. Phys. Soc., RMI Publ. #S94-26,
www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/1994/october/loct94.html.
Negawatts and Hypercars: How the Resource Efficiency Revolution Will Transform the Navy, Briefing to Resource
Requirements Review Committee, USN/USMC (Pentagon), 8 Jun 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-25.
Foreword to U.S. Navy Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Sustainable Planning: A Multi-Service
Assessment 1999.
More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden (coau. of panel report), Defense Science Board Task
Force report to U.S. Department of Defense, May 2001, www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA392666.pdf.
Energy Efficiency Survey Aboard USS Princeton CG-59, with C. Lotspeich, 30 Jun 2001 report to Office of Naval
Research, grant #N00014-01-1-0252, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-09_EnergyEfficiencyUSSPrinceton(abstract RMI Publ. #S01-10), summarized in All Energy Experts on Deck!, RMI Solutions, Fall/Winter 2001,
www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_FallWint01.pdf.
Critical Issues in Domestic Energy Vulnerability, Alliance to Save Energy Summit, 25 Oct 2001,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-25_CriticalIssuesDomesticEnergySecurity, and Aspen Clean Energy Roundtable,
8 Oct 2001, RMI Publ. #S01-6.
How Innovative Technologies, Business Strategies, and Policies Can Dramatically Enhance Energy Security andProsperity, invited testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 7 Mar 2006,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-02_SenateEnergyTestimony.
Surprises and Resilience, RMI Solns. 23:1–3 (Spring 2006),
www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_Spring06.pdf.
More Fight-Less Fuel (coau. of panel report), Defense Science Board Task Force report to U.S. Department of
Defense, Feb 2008, www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA477619.pdf.
Foreword to S. Cooke, In Mortal Hands, Bloomsbury USA (NY), 2009.
DoD’s Energy Challenge as Strategic Opportunity, Joint Force Quarterly 57:33–42 (Feb 2010), RMI Publ. #S10-

91

5,www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-57/lovins.pdf ; unabridged version, RMI Publ. #S10-7, at
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-05–DODsEnergyChallenge.
Interview on DoD’s potential applications of nuclear power, posted to DoD Energy Blog by Andy Bochman at
http://dodenergy.blogspot.com/2010/04/lovins-addresses-new-nuclear-power-for.html (26 Apr 2010),
http://dodenergy.blogspot.com/2010/05/lovins-addresses-new-nuclear-power-for.html (3 May 2010), andhttp://dodenergy.blogspot.com/2010/05/lovins-addresses-new-nuclear-power-for_12.html (12 May 2010).
Proliferation, Oil, and Climate: Solving for Pattern (Jan. 2010 unabridged version of following paper), RMI Publ.
#S10-2, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-02_ProliferationOilClimatePattern.
On Proliferation, Oil, and Climate: Solving for Pattern, Foreign Policy online, 21 Jan. 2010, RMI Publ. #S10-3,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-03_ForeignPolicyProliferationOilClimatePattern.
Rare Earth Elements, letter to Joint Force Quarterly, 31 Oct 2010, posted 4 Nov 2010 atwww.ndu.edu/press/lovins.html.
Response to Robert G. James’s Of Mustard Fuel and Marines, Wall St. J. online, 3 Aug 2011,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704529204576257130958288522.html?KEYWORDS=
mustard+marines#articleTabs%3Dcomments and http://www.rmi.org/KnowledgeCenter/Library/2011-10_ResponseToRobertJames.
Spotlight interview, Currents (U.S. Navy), Spring 2012, in press.
Climate Change
Thermal Limits to World Energy Use, widely circulated typescript, 1968–73 versions,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1973-01_ThermalLimitsWorldEnergy.
Economically Efficient Energy Futures, in W. Bach et al., eds., Interactions of Energy & Climate, Reidel(Dordrecht), 1980.
Least-Cost Energy: Solving the CO2 Problem, w/L.H. Lovins, F. Krause, & W. Bach, Brick House 1982, RMI 1989
(first published for German Federal Environmental Agency as Energy Strategy for Low Climatic Risks, Jun
1981 and as Wirtschaftlichster Energieeinsatz: Lösung des CO2-Problems (C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe), 1983.
Energy, Economics, and Climate, with L.H. Lovins, Clim. Change 4(3):217–220 (1982), 5:105 (1983), RMI Publ.
#E82-2.
Commentary, with L.H. Lovins, Carbon Dioxide Review: 1982, W.C. Clark, ed., pp. 367–370.
Profitably Abating Global Warming, Japanese-American Conference on Global Warming (Atlanta), 3–4 Jun 1991,
RMI Publ. #E91-16.
The Role of Energy Efficiency, in J. Leggett, ed., Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report, Oxford U. Press, 1990.
Profitably Abating Global Warming, paper for MITI/Georgia Tech. conference, 3-4 June 1991.
Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profit, in Takeuchi & Yoshino, eds., The Global Environment, Springer, 1991.
Least-Cost Climatic Stabilization, with L.H. Lovins, Ann. Rev. En. Envt. 16:433–531 (1991), RMI Publ. #E91-33,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E91-33_LeastCostClimaticStabilization, discussed in Science 251:154 (1991).
Profitably Stabilizing Global Climate-An Editorial, with L.H. Lovins, Clim. Ch. 22(2):89–94 (1992), RMI Publ.
#E92-7.
The Negawatt Revolution: Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profit, with L.H. Lovins, in Environmental
Strategy America, Campden Publ., 1994, RMI Publ. #E94-21 The Negawatt Revolution: Abating Global
Warming for Fun and Profit, with L.H. Lovins, in Environmental Strategy America, Campden Publ., 1994.
Climate: Making Sense and Making Money, with L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #C97-13,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C97-13_ClimateSenseMoney, November 1997.
Climate: Making Sense and Making Money, keynote, NGOs’ Res. Conf. Sustainability/Vision 21: Energy Policies
and CO2 Reduction Technologies, Kyôto, 6 Dec. 1997, RMI Publ. #E97-15, www.rmi.org/catalog/climate.htm,≥1 translation.
Climate change, Issues in Sci. & Technol. 14:9–10 (1998), Forum, National Academies,
www.issues.org/14.4/forum.htm.
More Profit with Less Carbon, Sci. Amer. 293(III):74–82, Sep 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-05,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C05-05_MoreProfitLessCarbon; an extended basic bibliography is provided atwww.rmi.org/images/other/Climate/C05-05a_MoreProfitBib.pdf.
What Can We Do?, Bull. atom. Scient. 63:47–48 (2007), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C07-07_WhatCanWeDo
What Can We Do to Fix the Climate Problem?, unabridged version of previous paper, 2007, RMI Publ. #E06-6,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/C06-10_FixClimateProblem.

92

Profitable climate solutions: correcting the sign error, Energy & Envtl. Sci. 2:15–18 (2009),
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b814525n.
Profitable Solutions to Climate, Oil, and Proliferation, 15 Jun 2009, 9th Royal Colloquium Climate Action: Tuning
in on energy, water and food security, Bönhamn (Sweden), Ambio 39(3):236–248 (2010), RMI Publ. #C10-18,
www.springerlink.com/content/0u401176160q6196/ or www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/201018_ProfitableSolutionsClimateOil.
Biotechnology, Forests, Other Environmental Issues
Long-Term Constraints on Human Activity, IFIAS/UNEP study, Env. Conserv. [Genève] 3(01):3–14 (1976),
Cambridge U. Press, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1976-02_ConstraintsOnHumanActivity.
Resource Efficiency in Wood Fiber Services: A ‘Soft Fiber Path’ for Forest Product Markets, with one sr. (Jason
Clay) & two jr. coaus., Systems Group on Forests (convenor) topical paper, RMI, 1997.
Saving Forests from the Demand Side, Forest Visions and Transitions Workshop, World Resources Institute(Washington DC), 28 Jun 1999, RMI Publ. #F99-14, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/F99-14_SavingForests.
Redesigning Evolution, letter, Science 285:1489–1491 (3 Sep 1999); unabridged version at RMI Publ. #B00-21,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B00-21_RedesigningEvolution (see popular paper below, A Tale of Two Botanies,
for the origin of this thread).
Where Descartes Meets Darwin, New Perspectives Qly., Summer 2000, RMI Publ. #B01-8,
www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2000_summer/descartes_darwin.html.
HealthHealth Care: Some Analogies, Lessons, and Ideas from Energy, slide document from co-keynote of Dec 2007
Institute for Healthcare Improvement annual meeting (Orlando), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/M07-01_
HealthCareAnalogiesLessons.
Experimental Physics
Splitting of 19F NMR Line in a Co2+-Doped NaF Crystal, J. Chem. Phys. 42(5):1558–1559 (1965).
http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v42/i5/p1558_s1?isAuthorized=no; also presented to Am. Phys. Soc., Bull.
APS 10:632 (1965).
U.S. PATENTS (Mr. Lovins develops through his charitable employer RMI and its spinoffs, open-sources, orotherwise gives away all his inventions, with these two exceptions:).
Method and Means for Observing Nuclear Magnetic Resonances, U.S. Pat. #3430128 (filed 25 Mar 1965, issued
28 Feb 1969), www.freepatentsonline.com/3430128.html.
Method and Means of Efficiently Moving and Sorting Shipping Containers [Flowport], Provisional U.S. Pat.
Appln. (filed 4 Jan 2007).
Popular Publications (excluding many RMI house-journal publications and external op-eds, interviews, blogs,
and letters).
Environmental, Economic, and Land-use Policy; Business; Miscellaneous
Eryri, the Mountains of Longing, D.R. Brower, ed., Friends of the Earth (SF) / McCall (NY) / Allen & Unwin(London), 1972 (text, layout, co-photographer; Exhibit Format).
The Stockholm Conference: Only One Earth, Earth Island (London), 1972, 1 translation.
Rock-Bottom: Nearing the Limits of Metal-Mining in Britain, Ecologist 23(5):5–19, May 1972,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1972-02_RockBottom or
http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/exact/browse/307/308/6420/2/7/0/.
Openpit Mining, Earth Island (London), 1973 (used for a few years as an intro. text at Royal School of Mines).
At Home in the Wild: New England’s White Mountains (co-photographer only), D.R. Brower, ed., Friends of the
Earth (San Francisco) / Appalachian Mountain Club (Boston) / NY Graphic Society, 1978 (Exhibit Format).
The Surprises Are Coming!, Christianity and Crisis 41(4):51, 16 Mar 1981.
Let’s Tap Water Efficiency Before Spending on Treatment, with R. Pinkham (sr. au.) and L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci.
Mon., 3 May 1994, www.csmonitor.com/1994/0503/03183.html.
How Not to Parachute More Cats, July 1989 speech to Santa Barbara conference Toward a Postmodern Presidency,

93with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.).
Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use, with E.U. von Weizsäcker (sr. au.) & L.H. Lovins, Earthscan(London) and Allen & Unwin (Sydney), 1997 (first published 1995 as Faktor Vier: Doppelter Wohlstand,halbierter Naturverbrauch by Droemer Knaur, München), ≥11 translations.
How Not to Parachute More Cats, with L.H. Lovins, RMI Publ. #G96-1, 1996.
Technology and lifestyles, interview, Resurgence 190:22–25 (Sep/Oct 1998).
Ökoeffizienz: Unbegrenzte Möglichkeiten, pp. 30–42, E.U. v. Weizsäcker & J.-D. Seiler-Hausmann, eds.,Ökoeffizienz, Birkhäuser, Berlin, 1999.
A Road Map for Natural Capitalism (with L.H. Lovins & P. Hawken), Harv. Bus. Rev. 77(3):145–158, 211 (May/Jun 1999), RMI Publ. #NC99-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/NC99-08_NatCapRoadmap; letters, id. Jul–Aug
and 77:179, 1999; reprinted at pp. 1–34, Business and the Environment, Harvard Business School Press, 2000,
and in HBR’s 2007 collection Going Green, Profitably.
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, with P. Hawken (sr. au.) & L.H. Lovins, Little Brown(NY) and Earthscan (London), 1999, 415 pp., www.natcap.org, ≥8 translations.
Natural Capitalism column, WorldLink, World Economic Forum, Nov/Dec 1999, www.worldlink.co.uk/issues/
181199171232.htm.
Replacing Nature’s Wisdom with Human Cleverness (with L.H. Lovins), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1 Aug 1999,
condensed from unabridged version A Tale of Two Botanies, RMI Publ. #B99-11,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B99-11_TaleTwoBotanies; also reprinted in Wired 8.04, Apr 2000,
www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/botanies.html.
The greening of human settlements, Town & Country Planning (UK), 69(1):30–31, Jan 2000.
Natural Capitalism, interview with Satish Kumar, Resurgence 198, Jan/Feb 2000,
www.resurgence.org/magazine/article1806-natural-capitalism.html.
Graduation Test for the Species-Commentary on Technology, Wash. Times, 13 Aug 2000, RMI Publ. #B00-31,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B00-31_GraduationTestSpecies.
Pathway to Sustainability, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.), Forum for Applied Res. & Publ. Pol., winter 2000,
http://forum.ra.utk.edu/Archives/PDF/15.4.pdf.
Commentary on Bill Joy’s Wired article, abridged by L.A. Times (2000) and unabridged in New Perspectives Qly.
17(3) (Summer 2000), RMI Publ. #B01-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/B01-08_BillJoyWiredArticle orwww.digitalnpq.org/archive/2000_summer/descartes_darwin.html; adapted in RMI Solutions 16(2):7–8(Winter 2000), www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_FallWin00.pdf.
Natural Capitalism: Path to Sustainability?, Corp. Envtl. Strat. 8(2):99–108 (2001), with L. H. Lovins (sr. au.).
El Capitalismo Natural, 2001 short summary at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/NC01_29A_ElCapitalismNatural.
Foreword to D.R. Brower, Let the Mountains Talk, Let the Rivers Run, New Society (Gabriola Island, BC), 2000
Capitalismo Natural, Apertura (Buenos Aires), Jun 2001, English original atwww.rmi.org/images/other/Businesses/NC01-29_NatCapApertura.pdf.
Interview on natural economy, Resurgence 213 (Jul/Aug 2002).
Some Missing Elements of Sustainable Development, Digital Vision Fellows lecture, Stanford University, 31 Oct
2003, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S03-12_MissingElementsSustainableDevelopment.
Foreword to The Natural Advantage of Nations, K. Hargrove & M.H. Smith, eds., pp. xix-xxii, Earthscan (London
and Sterling VA), 2005.
Abundance by Design, RMI Ann. Rpt. 2004–05, p. 2, www.rmi.org/Content/Files/AnnualReport04-05.pdf.
Imagine a World, address to Rocky Mountain Institute’s 25th birthday celebration, RMI Publ. #R07-9,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2007-09_ImagineAWorldText.
It’s Easy Being Green, interview, The American Interest 5(1):46–54 (Autumn 2009).
Applied Hope, RMI Ann. Rpt. 2007–08, pp. 2–3, RMI Publ. #R08-19, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2008-19_
AppliedHope.
Applied Hope, at pp. 165–168 in An Actual Man, J. Ogilvy, ed., Minuteman Press (Berkeley), 2010.
Preface to B. Harwood, Awakening to Sustainability: The Power of Spirit, in production, 2011.
The Essential Amory Lovins: Selected Writings, C.M. Burns, ed., in press, Earthscan (London), July 2011.
Applied Hope, Natural Sciences Commencement address, 15 May 2011,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-06_UCBCommencement.
Wonder in the Bewilderness, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2011, p. 84,
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/09/harvard-at-400.

94

Energy Policy (General)
Electric Power for the People, letter, N.Y. Times, 4 Nov 1971.
Clean Energy or a Choice of Poisons?, letter, N.Y. Times, 19 Jan 1972.
Why Nuclear Safety Is Unattainable, letter, N.Y.Times, 8 Jun 1973.
Is ‘Red Tape’ a Code Word for Law?, Wash. Post, 3 Aug 1979.
N.Y. Times letters: 4 November 1971, 19 January 1972, 8 January 1973, 10 June 1974, 16 September 1977, 11
October 1977, 5 August 1980 (the last with L.H. Lovins).
Thinking Soft, by A.J. Mayer, Newsweek, p. 108, 14 November 1977.
Setting Business Straight on Energy Priorities, Bus. Wk. interview/staff feature, p. 112D, 5 December 1977;
revisited in Conservation Power cover story, id., Amory Lovins’ Energy Ideas Don’t Seem So Dim Anymore,
p. 92, 16 Sept. 1991.
Plowboy Interview, Mother Earth News 17, November/December 1977.
How to Finance the Energy Transition, Not Man Apart (FOE/SF), Sept./Oct. 1978.
Soft Energy Paths, Resurgence 9(6):17 (1979).
Mr. Lovins’s Thesis, letter, Wall St. J., 13 Aug 1979.
Shortcuts to U.S. Energy Conservation, letter, N.Y. Times, 1 Jan 1980.
Democracy and the Energy Mobilization Board, Not Man Apart 14, February 1980.
Soft Energy Paths: How to Enjoy the Inevitable, The Great Ideas Today 1980, Encycl. Britannica suppl.
The Unmasking of a ‘Turkey’ Called Nuclear Power, letter, N.Y. Times, 5 Aug 1980.
Energy by the People, Energy for the People, Christianity and Crisis 40(4):51 (1980).
Reagan’s Energy Policy: Conservative or Ultraliberal?, Wash. Post, 24 Nov 1980.
Is Reagan a True Conservative on Energy?, L.A. Times, 12 January 1981.
Position paper, National Geographic Energy Issue, p. 73, Feb 1981.
The ‘Soft Path’ Solution for Hard-Pressed Utilities, Bus. Week interview, pp. 96L–96N, 23 Jul 1984, RMI Publ.
#U84-15.
Salvation for Seabrook?, letter, Barron’s, 29 Oct 1984, RMI Publ. #U84-27Lovins on the Soft Path, w/L.H. Lovins,
16mm, Envision/Bullfrog 1982, top prizes at Amer. etc. Film Festivals.
Turning On to Renewable Energy, letter, Wall St. J., 13 Nov 1984, RMI Publ. #E84-8.
Nuclear Heat or Solar Light?, letter to Wall St. J., 31 Dec 1984, RMI Publ. #E84-31.
Nuclear Follies, letter to Forbes, 4 Feb 1985, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/1985-01_ForbesLetterToEditor.
Hiding the True Costs of Energy Sources, Wall St. J., p. 28, 17 Sep 1985, with H.R. Heede (sr. au.).
Editorial with L.H. Lovins, Energy and Edn. (Natl. Assn. Sci. Teachers), p. 1, Apr 1986, RMI Publ. #E86-11.
Nuclear Energy Is Not Economic or Necessary, with L.H. Lovins, Newsday, 24 Jun 1986, RMI Publ. #E86-15.
The Irrelevance of Nuclear Power, with L.H. Lovins, op-ed for Den. Post, Jun 1986, RMI Publ. #E86-14.
America’s Energy Oracle, by B. Lemley, mag. cover stories, Wash. Post, 29 June 1986, Chicago Trib., 3 Aug. 1986.
Energy Update, In Context interview, p. 27, August 1986.
Alternatives to Nuclear Power: Coming of Age, Devel. Forum, p. 4, Sep 1986, RMI Publ. #E87-5.
Energy Update, interview, In Context, Autumn 1986, pp. 27–32, RMI Publ. #E86-27.
Energy Unbound: A Fable for America’s Future, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.) & S. Zuckerman, Sierra Club (SanFrancisco), 1986.
Fun Energy Facts to Know and Tell at Cocktail Parties, with J. Klusmire, RMI Publ. 1987, #E87-13.
Why a utility fizzled out, letter, Bus. Wk., 7 Mar 1988.
If everything else fails, we may behave wisely, High Country News 21(5), 3 pp., 13 Mar 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-20.
Onassis Prize Acceptance Speech, 20 Apr 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-21.
A Future Technology Whose Time Has Passed?, letter to Wall St. J., 17 Aug 1989, RMI Publ. #E89-32.
Personal comments on draft EIS for four-laning [Colorado] Highway 82, 1 Oct 1989, RMI Publ. #E90-15.
Abating Global Warming for Fun and Profit, letter to Wall St. J., 16 Apr 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-9.
Generating Heat in Carbondale, 4 Jan 1990, and Alternatives to Mid-Continent’s Coal-Fired Power Plant, 2 Jul
1990, letters to editors of local W. Colorado newspapers, with L. Hunter Lovins, RMI Publ. #E90-14.
A Market-Based Energy Strategy, Greenwire interview, 1992, RMI Publ. #E92-4.
Costly, Subsidized Energy Not Necessary, with D. Yoon (sr. au.), letter, Chr. Sci. Mon., 4 May 1993, RMI Publ.
#93-13, www.csmonitor.com/1993/0504/04181.html.
Letter to Forbes on electric cars, 1 Feb 1994, RMI Publ. #T94-22.

95

Preface to Energy efficiency for a sustainable world, B. Laponche et al., Intl. Conseil Energie (Paris), 1997.
The Organic Egghead, by M. McRae, Harrowsmith 3:37 (1986).
Small Wonders: The Energy Efficiency Revolution, by A. Carothers, Greenpeace 13:211 (1988).
Searching for Oil in Windows, Doors and Lights, by M. Wald, N.Y. Times, 16 May 1988.
Saving Energy to Save Ourselves: Amory Lovins, Calypso Log interview with M. Batten, p. 8, October 1989.
Amory Lovins: Walking the Soft Path, by J.R. Udall, Sierra 75(1):128 (January/February 1990).
Where Do We Go From Here?, by W.H. MacLeish, Smithsonian, p. 58, April 1990.
High Priest of the Low-Flow Showerhead, by C. Brown, Outside, pp. 58-66 & 158-163, November 1991.
Amory Lovins: Two Times a Hero?, by A. Kleiner, Pop. Sci., p. 76, July 1992.
Energy Policy, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.) & H.R. Heede, p. 671 in M. Green, ed., The Citizens Transition Project,
Changing America: Blueprints for the New Administration.
Carbon Reductions Can Make You Money, letter, Chr. Sci. Mon., 22 Dec 1997,
www.csmonitor.com/1997/1222/122297.opin.letters.1.html.
Nuclear Energy Debate: Nuclear Power Earns Fresh Look, Despite Past Woes (subtitled Need for nuclear is passé),with L.H. Lovins, USA Today, p. A12, 17 Apr 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E0115_NuclearEnergyDebate.
California Dreaming, exchange with W. Tucker, The American Spectator, 15 May 2001, unabridged version as RMI
Publ. #E01-17, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-17_CaliforniaDreaming.
Tough Lovins, exchange with W. Tucker, The Weekly Standard, 4 Jun 2001, unabridged version as RMI Publ. #E0129, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-29_ToughLovins.
The Nuclear Option Revisited, with L.H. Lovins, Los Angeles Times, 8 Jul 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-19,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-19_NuclearOptionRevisited.
Electricity Solutions for California, Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, 11 Jul 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-20,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-20_ElectricitySolutionsCalifornia.
California Electricity: Facts, Myths, and National Lessons, Worldwatch Inst. conf. (Aspen, CO), 22 Jul 2001,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/U01-02_CaliforniaElectricityFactsMyths.
Re fueling, Economist, p. 6, 29 May 1999 [by that newspaper’s correspondent]
Can nuclear power solve the energy crisis?, Insight, 27 Aug 2001, RMI Publ. #E01-05,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E01-05_NuclearPowerSolveEnergyCrisis.
Put This in Your Pipeline and Smoke It-Domestic Oil and Gas is Not the Ticket to U.S. Energy Security, with L.H.
Lovins, Grist, 20 Nov 2001, http://www.grist.org/article/in3.
Mobilizing Energy Solutions, with L.H. Lovins, American Prospect, 28 Jan 2002, RMI Publ. #E02-01,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-01_MobilizingEnergySolutions.
Energy Forever, with L.H. Lovins, American Prospect, 11 Feb 2002, RMI Publ. #E02-01a,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E02-01a_EnergyForever.
Old Problems, New Solutions: Putting an End to Energy Crises, World Link, Jul/Aug 2002, World Economic
Forum.
We Can Take Politics Out of Energy Policy, with R.C. McFarlane (sr. au.), Dallas Morning News, 18 May 2003,
RMI Publ. #S03-03, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S03-03_PoliticsOutEnergyPolicy.
Leaving Appalachia Right Side Up…At a Profit, Orion 25(1):66–67 (Jan/Feb 2006),
www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/262/.
Wise Up to Nuclear Folly, Green Futures (Forum for the Future, UK), 8 Mar 2006,
www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/articles/602479.
Atomic Balm, letter, N.Y. Times Sunday Magazine, 20 Aug 2006,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E6D7173EF933A1575BC0A9609C8B63&scp=3&sq=%22Amory+B.+Lovins%22&st=nyt.
Commemorative Lecture, Blue Planet Prize, 2007, www.af-info.or.jp/en/blueplanet/doc/list/2007lect-lovins.pdf.
Does a big economy need big power plants?, New York Times Freakonomics guest blog, 9 Feb 2009,http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/does-a-big-economy-need-big-power-plants-a-guest-post,
RMI Publ. #E09-06.
Nuclear nonsense, Grist, 14 Oct 2009, RMI Publ. #E09-10, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-10_NuclearNonsense(see Four Nuclear Myths above for expanded technical version); adapted in Earth Island J. 25(4):49 & 51,
Winter 2011, 1 Dec 2010.
Climate: Eight Convenient Truths, Roll Call, 9 Nov 2009,96

www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-12_ClimateEightConvenientTruths, slightly revised and republished in RMI
Solns. J., Feb 2010, RMI Publ. #2009-12, www.rmi.org/rmi/Climate-+Eight+Convenient+Truths.
Reinventing Fire: A New Vision and Reinventing Fire: The Strategy, RMI Solns. J. 2(3):6–14 (Fall 2009),
www.rmi.org/rmi/Solutions+Journal+Fall+2009.
Nuclear socialism, The Weekly Standard 16(6):15–16, 25 Oct 2010, RMI Publ. #E10-21,
www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nuclear-socialism_508830.html or
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-21_NuclearSocialism.
Response to William Tucker’s The Weekly Standard Goes Green (American Spectator, 26 Oct 2010,
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/26/whos-in-love-with-lovins/1), submitted 1 Nov 2010, unpublished, posted
as a comment 14 Dec 2010 at http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/26/whos-in-love-with-lovins#comment_445884
and 15 Dec 2010 at www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-25_ReplyToWilliamTucker.
The efficiency dilemma, letter, The New Yorker, p. 3, 17 Jan 2011 (reply to David Owen’s 20/27 Dec 2010 article
The efficiency dilemma), www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-01_ReplyToNewYorker.
Learning from Japan’s nuclear disaster, 17 Mar 2011, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-02_LearningFromJapan,
reprinted in Grist, Huffington Post, etc.
Nuclear power invited essay, The Economist online debate, 11 Apr 2011,www.economist.com/debate/days/view/685.
Foreword to M. Schneider, A. Froggatt, & S. Thomas, Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World: The World
Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010–2011, Worldwatch Institute (Washington DC), Apr 2011,www.worldwatch.org/TK URL.
Energy Efficiency
The Plowboy Interview with Amory Lovins, Mother Earth News, 15 pp., Nov./Dec. 1977,www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/1977-11-01/Amory-Lovins.aspx.
Living Better With Less Electricity, L.A. Times, 24 Dec 1981.
The Soft Path Solution for Troubled Utilities, Business Week interview, 23 Jul 1984.
To Save Energy, Oceans, Billions-and the Air We Breathe, L.A. Times, Opinion, p. 5, 30 Oct 1988, RMI Publ. #E8843.
Power Utilities Violate Miss Piggy’s Fourth Law, L.A. Times, Opinion, p. 5, 11 Dec 1988, RMI Publ. #U88-48.
Utilities Conserve to Compete, Best of Business Qly., Winter 1988, RMI Publ. #U88-49.
Efficiency, the Best Cure for Power Shortages, with M. Shepard, Alliances (Summer 1989), RMI Publ. #E89-40.
Saving Energy to Save Ourselves, Calypso Log, pp. 8–10, 22 (Oct 1989), RMI Publ. #E89-43.
How a Compact Fluorescent Lamp Saves a Ton of CO2, 5 Feb 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-5.
Efficient Use of Electricity, with A.P. Fickett & C.W. Gellings (sr. aus.; ABL wrote ~70%), Sci. Amer.
263(3):64–74 (Sep 1990), RMI publ. #E90-19; reprinted at pp. 11–23 of Energy for Planet Earth, Scientific
American, 1990.
The Negawatt Revolution, Across the Board 27(9):21–22 (Sep 1990), The Conference Board, RMI Publ. #E90-20,
www.thewindway.us/pdf/E90-20_NegawattRevolution.pdf.
The Role of Energy Efficiency, Ch. 10, pp. 193–222 & 505–511, in Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report, J.
Leggett, ed., Oxford U. Press, 1990, RMI Publ. #E90-21.
Energy Efficiency for the Environment and the Economy, with P. Cantrell, Commentator, pp. 8–10, Nov/Dec 1990,
RMI Publ. #E90-25.
Energy Efficiency in the West, Conservation Digest, Apr 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-17.
A power of good, Far Eastern Econ. Rev., 1 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #E91-34; full text is RMI Publ. #E91-23.
Electricity Gluttons: More, Cheaper!, letter responding to Prof. Alfred Kahn, Wall St. J., 16 Sep 1991; publishedand unabridged versions in RMI Publ. #E91-36.
Realistic Energy Savings?, letter with sr. author Joseph Romm, For. Aff. 72(1):213–214 (Jan 1993).
The Cause of Power Shortages: Best Buys Last, Newsweek, 3 Feb 1994, RMI Publ. #U94-19.
Keeping Warm and Staying Cool, Economically and Efficiently, with sr. aus. D. Yoon and H.R. Heede and jr. au.
L.H. Lovins, Garbage, pp. 54–57 (Spring 1994), RMI Publ. #E94-20.
Spread the Costs of Electricity Fairly, Chr. Sci. Mon., p. 19, 28 Nov 1994, RMI Publ #U94-30,
www.csmonitor.com/1994/1128/28192.html.
Energy Efficiency Pays, with L.H. Lovins, letter to N.Y. Times, 30 Nov 1994, RMI Publ. #E94-32.
Homemade Money: How to save energy and dollars in your home, with H.R. Heede (sr. au.), O. Bailey, L.H.

97

Lovins, & W.D. Browning, RMI, Snowmass CO, 1995.
The Next Energy Crisis, with L.H. Lovins, Pop. Sci., pp. 89–91, Sep 1996.
Technology and Lifestyles, interview, Resurgence 190:22–25 (Sep/Oct 1998).
Lovins: Smart Companies Aren’t Waiting Around for Climate Treaty Ratification, Worldwatch, 12(1):7 (1999),
RMI Publ. #E98-6.
Pioneering Energy Efficiency, interview, Tagesspiegel (in English: The Berlin Journal 14:48 (Spring 2007).
Using energy more efficiently, interview, McKinsey Quarterly, Jul 2008,
www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Using_energy_more_efficiently_An_interview_with_the_Rocky_Mountain_
Institutes_Amory_Lovins_2164.
Greg Franta: An Appreciation, RMI Solns. J. 3(1):6–9 (Spring 2009),
www.rmi.org/rmi/Greg+Franta,+An+Appreciation.
Response to Jeffrey Ball’s Wall Street Journal article The Homely Costs of Energy Conservation.
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124959929532112633.html#articleTabs%3Darticle, Aug 2009), RMI Publ.
#2009-16, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-16_LovinsResponseToWSJ.
Appreciation of Greg Franta FAIA in his posthumous Cooling the Warming, Rocky Mountain Institute, 2010.
Oil Policy
Synfuels: Money Isn’t Enough, Denver Post, 24 Sep 1979.
Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel?, Wall St. J., 1 May 1987.
The Avoidable Oil Crisis, with L.H. Lovins, Atlantic, Dec 1987, RMI Publ. #S87-25, and letters with L.H. Lovins
Apr and Jun 1988, RMI Publ. S87-11.
How to Find U.S. Oil Reserves, letter, Wall St. J., 19 Apr 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-7.
Efficiency Can Halt Oil Rigs and Dams, letter, Rocky Mtn. News, 23 Jun 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-24.
Energy and Security, interview, In Context 19:14–19 (1988), RMI Publ. #S88-34.
CAFE Signals Gas-Mileage Efficiency, Wall St. J., 26 Sep 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-37.
Letter re Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Audubon, Sep 1988, RMI Publ. #S88-38.
An Energy Security Reader, Oct 1988, 2nd edn., RMI Publ. #S88-45.
The Energy Saboteurs Are In the White House, with L.H. Lovins, L.A. Times, 21 Jan 1991, RMI Publ. #S91-4.
Interview with P. Shabecoff on National Energy Strategy, Greenwire 1(135):11–13, 1(136):12–13 (1991).
Reinventing the Wheels, with L.H. Lovins, Atlantic, Jan 1995, pp. 75–86, RMI Publ. #T94-29,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/T94-29_ReinventingTheWheels (two reprints shown in Technical section above),and Letters, Apr 1995, RMI Publ. #T94-29 and #S96-2.
Get Great Cars on the Road, cover story, Amicus J. 21(3):24 (Fall 1999).
Your oil or your wildlife, letter, Sci. Amer. 285:13 (Sep 2001).
How America Can Free Itself of Oil-Profitably, Fortune, 4 Oct 2004,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E04-21_AmericaProfitablyFreeItselfOil.
Ending Our Fatal Oil Dependence, The Ripon Forum 39(2)12–14, Mar/Apr 2005, RMI Publ. #E05-02,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E05-02_OilOurFatalDependence.
How to Live without Oil, Newsweek Intl. guest article, 8 Aug 2005, www.energybulletin.net/node/7753.
Getting Off Oil, guest essay in Economist special issue (end-of-Dec 2006) The World in 2007, reprinted in RMI
Solns. 23(1):10–11 (Spring 2007), RMI Publ. #E06-8, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E06-08_GettingOffOil.
Drilling in All the Wrong Places, RMI Solns. J. 2(2):4–5 (Fall/Winter 2008), RMI Publ. #E08-18,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2008-18_DrillingWrongPlaces.
How to boost gas mileage and get better cars, with M. Gately & L. Schewel, Chr. Sci. Mon., 28 Jul 2009,www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0728/p09s01-coop.html.
Freeing America from its Addiction to Oil, CNN interview, 2010,www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2010-01_FreeingAmericaAddictionOil.
National Security
Untangling the Nuclear Debate, Devel. Forum 4(2):5 (1976).
Nuclear Spread: ‘The Cure Begins at Home,’ letter, N.Y. Times, 3 Feb 1976.
Resilience in Energy Strategy, letter, N.Y. Times, 24 Jul 1977.
Peddling Nuclear Power: An Explosive U.S. Policy, L.A. Times, 6 Dec 1981.
Better Energy Security, with L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., 28 Feb 1982, www.csmonitor.com/1982/0628/062823.html.

98Better energy security, Chr. Sci. Monitor, 28 June 1982.
The First Nuclear World War, with P. O’Heffernan (sr. au.) & L.H. Lovins, Wm. Morrow (NY), 1983.
The Fragility of Domestic Energy, with L.H. Lovins, Atlantic, Nov 1983, RMI publ. #S83-8,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S83-08_FragilityDomesticEnergy.
Real Security, with L.H. Lovins, Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine, Mar 1983, RMI Publ. #S83-9.
Resilient Power, with L.H. Lovins (sr. au.), Solar Age 8:A1–A8 (1983).
Building a Secure Society, with L.H. Lovins, Ecologist 14(4):141–145 (1984).
Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy, with L.H. Lovins, N.Y. Times, 3 Dec 1990, RMI Publ. #S90-27 (annotedversion #S90-28); revised edn. reprinted as Winning the Peace, Whole Earth Rev., pp. 60–62, Winter 1991,
RMI Publ. #S92-3.
Lessons from Iraq, letter to Bull. atom. Scient., 16 Jul / 9 Aug 1991, RMI Publ. #S92-5.
Making Security Profitable, sermon, Cathedral of St. John the Divine (NY), 17 Jan 1993, RMI Publ. #S94-23.
Nuclear power and proliferation, with L.H. Lovins, letter to Wall St. J., 21 Apr 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-20.
Nonproliferation: Now a Workable Idea, with L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., p. 19, 27 Apr 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-21,
www.csmonitor.com/1995/0427/27191.html.
Making Security Profitable, sermon w/L.H. Lovins, Cathedral of St. John the Divine (NY), 17 Jan. 1993.
Nuclear Energy Provides Bomb Kits, letter, Wall St. J., p. A17, 18 May 1995, RMI Publ. #S95-20.
Russia’s Greener Future, with H. Cleveland (sr. au.), Moscow Times, 3 Sep 1998.
The 800-mile-long Chapstick…and Other Tales of Domestic Energy Insecurity, TomPaine.com(mon sense), 30
Oct. 2001.
Battling Fuel Waste in the Military, RMI, 2001, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S01-12_BattlingMilitaryFuelWaste.
Energy Security: First, Do No Harm, with L.H. Lovins, op-ed for Wash. Post, 30 Sep 2001, RMI Publ. #S01-11.
What Is Real Security?, with L.H. Lovins, YES!, Spring 2002,
www.yesmagazine.org/issues/what-does-it-mean-to-be-an-american-now/493.
Energy Security: It Takes More Than Drilling, with R.J. Woolsey (sr. au.) and L.H. Lovins, Chr. Sci. Mon., 29 Mar
2002, RMI Publ. #S02-05, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S02-05_EnergySecurityMoreThanDrilling.
Military Transformation and the Roots of National Security, retitled How to Get Real Security, Whole Earth, Fall
2002, RMI Publ. #S02-08, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S02-08_MilitaryTransformationAndNationalSecurity.
Real Security, Resurgence 218 (May/June 2003).
Energy Security Factsheet, 2003, RMI Publ. #S03-04, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S03-04_USEnergySecurityFacts.
Towering Design Flaws, The Globe and Mail (Toronto), 21 Aug 2003,
www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E03-06_ToweringDesignFlaws.
Enlightening Blackouts, RMI Solns., Fall/Winter 2003,
www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_FallWint03.pdf.
Gas Pains, letter, Atlantic 296(1):20, Aug 2005, RMI Publ. #S05-06, www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/S05-06_GasPains.
It’s All About Efficiency, N.Y. Times, 30 Jul 2006,
www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/nyregionopinions/30CIlovins.html.

99