 What's the purpose of the Wisconsin Energy Institute? I think what was laid out before, the great interdisciplinary undertaking, that's certainly part of it, but I take it as nothing less than to revolutionize the energy system. That is the goal. The ultimate goal is to fundamentally change how energy is produced and consumed. So why would you need, and it's hard enough to put diverse life scientists together with diverse forms of engineering and come up with a coherent emergent property that is something to eat that was bigger than some of its parts? That's hard enough. So why would you need, the question I will ask today, an empirical question, is why would you need social scientists? That's the question I want to ask. I think it's an empirical question. Why would you need anthropologists? Let's throw that right out. Because I think you need to leave open the possibility that the answer is you don't. If you do not have an answer, if you do not, because the knee-jerk assumption that you need to reach all the way across campus without knowing why you're doing it will not produce the effect that you want. So I think you'd have to ask the question, why would you need an anthropologist? Why would you need a geographer, a sociologist? Is there a problem? I'm going to stand back here. It's making a lot of clicking noises. I move around a lot. Can you see that? It's not pressing. This is the last part. That slide comes to the very end. So what I'm saying is that we can render this question empirical. And I'm going to give an example that's outside of the domain of energy. In the late 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency was interested in reducing the amount of commercial chemicals being used by consumers on their property. That's herbicides, pesticides, the kind of stuff that you put on your lawn. It's being used in quantities five or ten times what's put on the bag. The analytical chemistry is very clear on what these exposure pathways do to people, to children, and it's winding up in the waterway. So the EPI is trying to revolutionize how you communicate to people, to citizens, that they maybe shouldn't use all of those chemicals. In national study we performed, it turns out that people who think that lawn chemicals are bad for the environment, for their children's health, for their family are statistically more likely to use those chemicals than people who don't think that. So if you take the superior correlation, more environmental education actually means more chemical use. More reverse correlation. The real, the gut question then when you drill down is, what the hell is going on? Who are these people and what are they doing? And there's a significant majority of the population of homeowners across the United States. If you do drill down into the data, and I'll come back to energy in a moment, you'll learn several things. One, people are concerned about the value of their property. They need microeconomic trade-offs on the order of $10,000 to $15,000, and the exposure pathways to certain kinds of eugenic chemicals in their households, in large numbers. And if you consider that 25% of the land cover of Franklin County, Ohio is turf grass lawns, that is a remarkable microeconomic trade-off being made around risk decisions. You can imagine what the implications of this are for driving certain kinds of vehicles or embracing certain kinds of technologies, right? But that explains only a small amount of the variance. If you drill down into the data, what else do you learn? You learn that people who use lawn chemicals can name more of their neighbors than people who do not use lawn chemicals. This is an embracing, loving, social practice. It's okay, I wouldn't read that till the very end. It's an embracing, loving, social practice. People are exposing themselves to chemicals that are largely unnecessary, or at least in the quantities that they're being used, because they want to feel good about their relationships with their neighbors. As rational as that is, it's a structured and patterned behavior. So what is my point? My point is if the EPA wants to change people's behaviors around an environmentally relevant problem, then they need to know the microeconomics of households. They need to know the sociology of behaviors within communities. They need to know the macroeconomical economy of the pesticide industry. I probably left a few out. So what are the implications for the Wisconsin Energy Institute? The same thing holds for energy is what I want to suggest. If you want to revolutionize the energy system or create a sustainable city with a transportation network that looks fundamentally unlike the one we have now, you are talking about a revolution in consumer behavior and practice, the way firms and businesses behave and relate to consumers and buyers, to the way communities relate to one another. If you think about a microgrid within a community or a neighborhood scale or a household scale, you're actually talking about a different kind of moral economy within a household. You can make all kinds of things available without any change, fundamental change of behavior. So this map, which I put together about 30 seconds at a request by folks here at the Institute, is my notion of at least some of the kinds of political, social, human and behavioral sciences that impinge on the question of revolutionizing energy. For example, this building itself is the product of a political event. The relationship of the DOE, certain kinds of funding at the state level. There's actually a science fleet or not that studies this. Science policy is irreparable for you. With referee journal articles that can predict where and when, to some degree of accuracy and inaccuracy, you will find close of capital towards certain kinds of research, certain kinds of investments and certain kinds of change in the landscape. Are there people who know how to do that on this campus? You bet there are. Are they studying energy? Maybe not. Next, you can imagine science communication and journalism. There's an enormous range of problems related, for example, to the communication of climate change, the communication of energy needs. This is a known problem. Are there people who actually study how things are framed, how they're communicated? The answer is, hey, how are they on this campus? The answer is yes, they are. Are they studying energy? I don't know that they are. If you consider environmental perception or behavioral economics, behavioral economics is that part of economics that has discovered that people are not rational. There are behavioral economists on this campus. Are they studying energy? I don't know. I bet not. On the other side, there's the trade-offs that occur in the landscape between certain kinds of energy choices. What occurs if you create a biofuels revolution in the past? In the agricultural industry trade-offs between different kinds of crops, do we study that? Fortunately, I can say we do study that, and we do study in the field of energy at the Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. I'm stepping in here for Carol Barford, who should be speaking on this occasion. Science and technology studies, location and optimization. That is, how and when are those power lines going to be placed? How do you optimize those kinds of outcomes? That's both a mathematical problem that can be solved with a computer, but ultimately it is a political problem, which is related to infrastructural development, the granting of roads, and the way municipal as well as state government operates and functions. To revolutionize the energy system, in Wisconsin requires that you would need to know all these things. To say nothing of land cover trade-offs that would spill out from certain kinds of choices, and finally, those opposition movements that do not want NIMBYism, that does not want something in its backyard, we can say, hey, that's irrational, this is good for everybody. Those people have arguments. They have ways that they operate. They have politics. They have constituencies. And they function. Are they studiable? Are they predictable? Can they be? Are they amenable to negotiation? The answer is yes, but you need someone who studies social movements. You'd need an anthropologist. So, to revolutionize energy, and the Energy Institute, I would suggest, means a further enormous challenge, which I think we have to take very seriously, which is to think about this as a whole campus enterprise for a 10-year moonshot to, in 10 years' time, to have revolutionized that grid, or 20 years' time, wherever you want to put that goalpost, is going to have to be a truly full campus partnership around these questions. And there are people out there who are itching to support this kind of science with their own, who may not even know they're itching to do it. But they have the tools at their disposal if they were given a problem, intractable and weird enough like the one with long chemical. To put it, to bring it to bear on energy-relevant questions and problems. In the absence of that, a revolution in the energy sector will fail. Thank you very much.