luận văn thạc sỹ bằng tiếng anh EXAMPLES OF “FEMALE” LANGUAGE PRESENTATION: ASPECTS OF MALE DISCOURSE IN HILLARY CLINTON’S SPEECH ON ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

EXAMPLES OF “FEMALE” LANGUAGE PRESENTATION:
ASPECTS OF MALE DISCOURSE IN HILLARY CLINTON’S
SPEECH ON ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE


TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………..
………………..1
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……………………………..
……………...2
3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA………………………………….
…….5
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND
RESULTS……………………………………5
4.1. Directiveness………………………………………………………
…...5
4.2.

Decisiveness...................................................................................
.........6

4.3.

Clarity.....
……………………………………………………………….9

4.4.

Male-topic focus…...
………………………………………………….10

5.
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….
11
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………
…..13
APPENDIX
………………………………………………………………..15



1. INTRODUCTION:
People use language to help create their gender identity. Research has
given us insight into some typical gender-related differences between
men and women’s speech. According to Robin Lakoff (1975), for
example, typical female language is marked by the use of certain
linguistic features such as hedging devices, tag questions, intensifiers
and qualifiers, the so-called “trivial lexis”, “empty” adjectives and
raising intonation on declaratives. By using this kind of language,
women weaken or mitigate the force of an utterance, showing
themselves to be indecisive, co-operative, and indirect. Unlike
women’s language, it is suggested that men are competitive in
conversation, dominate conversation, speak with more authority, and
give more commands (Keith and J. Shuttleworth, 2000: 222).
Consequently, male language is believed to be powerful and
authoritative.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the most successful female
politicians worldwide both as she supported her husband, the former
US President – Bill Clinton, in his political career, and as she has been
working for her own political career more recently in the role of New
York Senator. Being a female politician and a longtime feminist as well

as the only one female candidate in the competition with male
politicians running for the White House, she has made speeches on
global issues to show her targets, strategies and policies in leading
American economy to a better future. One of the speeches is about
energy and climate change. It will be argued in the essay that in this
speech it is possible to find some aspects of male discourse:
directiveness, decisiveness, clarity, and male-topic focus.

1


This essay is aimed at discovering how effective the abovementioned male characteristics of language are as used by Hillary
Rodham Clinton in her delivery of the speech on energy and climate
change. It is my claim that through her use of male language in the
speech she is able to show herself to be powerful and assert her
leadership capacity in guiding the American country to a better future.
Through her use of aspects of male discourse she hopes to be strongly
supported by her fellow American citizens in the competition with
Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, and then in
the general election for the term of 2009-2013 in order to achieve her
final political goal – entering the White House in the post of The US
President.
2.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The language of men and that of women have been perceived as
being very different from each other until recently. Specifically, the use
of language by men was considered the norm and women’s language
was deviant from that norm; thereafter women’s language has been

regarded inferior to that of men. Robbin Lakoff (1975) characterized
the so-called female language as a language, which is used to weaken
or mitigate the force of an utterance by women. However, O’Barr and
Atkins (in Coates, 1998) have shown in their study of how men and
women talk in American courts that the kind of language stated above
should not be called “female language” but “powerless language” as it
is characteristic of the people in powerless positions in American
society (either because of their relatively low social status or because
of lack in experience in the courtroom). Some scholars claim that these
2


properties of women’s language stem from the fact that women are less
confident than men and feel nervous about asserting anything too
strongly. Additionally, Keith and J. Shuttleworth (2000:222) suggest
that women talk more than men, they are indecisive and more cooperative whereas men do not talk about emotions but machines and
sports. Furthermore, Women’s talk is often described with the verb
gossip, nag, chatter, rabbit, yak, and natter, which all imply that
women’s talk is plentiful but rather pointless (Thomas et al, 2004: 86).
Research has attempted to discover the difference in language use
between men and women more generally. One of the theories on which
the subject of differences between men and women’s language
concentrates is the “dominance approach” (Lakoff 1975, Fishman
1983), which claims that the difference in language between men and
women is a consequence of male dominance and female subordination.
In this view, women are a just suppressed group. Another theory
believed by the supporters of the “difference approach” (Coates 1986,
Tannen 1990) is that men and women belong to different subcultures
and that any linguistic differences can be attributed to cultural
differences. Deborah Tannen’s distinction of information and feelings

is also described as report talk (of men) and rapport talk (of women).
The differences can be summarized as follows: Women talk too much,
speak in private contexts, build relations and overlap whereas men are
quite different. They get more air time, speak in public, negotiate status
or avoid failure, and speak one at a time. Thus, the two theories have
stated characteristics of the language of men and women from the
different angles but eventually, it has been found that whatever the
characteristics of the language of men and women are, the language of
men is considered to be more powerful than that of women.
3


Research has also given us an insight into the fact that men and women
are far different in topic development. Specifically, women are said to
talk about their personal topics such as their family, their emotions and
their relationships whereas men prefer talking about impersonal topics,
based on technical knowledge or factual, for example, sports, cars,
home improvements (Thomas et al, 2004: 89). Hence, men tend to be
more decisive, direct and clear in giving and receiving information.
Their language requires fewer intimate revelations but emphasizes
instead the exchange information as the reason for the conversation.
And since men negotiate status or avoid failure as stated earlier, they
seem to be directive in the way they talk. Chosen aspects of male
discourse such as directiveness, decisiveness, clarity and male-topic
focus will be demonstrated with proper examples from the speech of
energy and climate change by Hillary Clinton. An analysis of the
above-mentioned aspects of male discourse will reveal how effective
those aspects are performed by Hillary in delivering her speech before
the US Presidential election period as a means of showing the power
and leadership capacity of a would-be president.

3. METHODOLOGY AND DATA
Energy and climate change: Comprehensive Strategy to Address
the Climate and Energy Challenge is a speech by Hillary Clinton
collected from one of the websites about her political career, in which
aspects of male discourse have been found in her use of language to
address the speech. The analysis will be developed into four parts
corresponding to four subtitles in the data analysis part of the essay:
directiveness, decisiveness, clarity and male-topic focus.
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS:
4


4.1.

Directiveness:

Directiveness is defined as having power to direct, tending to direct,
guide or govern, which can be easily found in men’s personality more
than in that of women since authority and dominance are reflected in
men’s language as claimed by Arin and M. Sifianou (2001:57).
However, in energy and climate change: Comprehensive Strategy to
Address the Climate and Energy Challenge, Hillary has been found
different from women in the way she used the language, which are the
characteristics of male language, to reflect her ability in directing
others. She went straight to the point by saying today I want to focus
on. Right from the beginning of the speech, she presented her
directiveness in the way of introducing the subject of her speech to her
audience: And today I want to focus on energy and climate change. The
subject for her today speech was directly referred to and major contents
of the speech should cover some issues regarding energy, for example,

the use of energy, recycling or regenerating energy, impacts on the
environment or climate and effective provisional as well long-term
solutions for the issues.… By being directive in coming to the point at
the beginning of the speech, she was able to guide her audience to
focus on the major contents of her speech when they heard I want to
focus on energy and climate change, and they could have a proper
guess about what would be mentioned in the speech. Drawing the
audience’s attention more to the speech suggests her speech delivery
was more effective. The use of the verb want instead of the phrase I
would like to did not show her impoliteness but her directiveness since
it helped her to direct listeners to a clearer way in catching her main
points in the speech. To be a good leader, the quality of being directive
is one of the important characteristics and she got it through the way of
5


her language to present her directiveness as I want to focus on was
chosen for opening her speech on energy and climate change.
4.2.

Decisiveness:

A person who has the power or quality of deciding a question or
controversy and putting an end to contest or controversy is considered
to de decisive. And the people of this type are of decisive character, and
their effecting a conclusion to a contest or putting an end to
controversy is marked with promptness and decision (J. Foster and
Hallam, 1913).
When I am President, we will set three major goals for America…
when I am President,...we will set a goal of reducing electricity

demands 20% by 2020… As President, I will lead national commitment
to energy efficiency… When I become President, will have to be carbon
neutral…As President, I will put in place a market-based cap … As
President, I will invest $2 billion in research … As President, I will
raise the fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2020 and
by 55 by 2030…As president, I will fund ten “Smart Grid Cities”…As
President, to help us reach 25% by 2025, I will make the production
tax credit... And when I am President, The United States Treasury will
issue “Energy Independence Bonds” …And when I am President, it
will be the calling of our nation…Well, come January 2009, I’m
sending a different message. I want to act quickly …My goal will be to
secure a deal by 2010.
Examples of decisiveness in Hillary’s use of language are illustrated
with the way she used repeatedly, such as, the phrases As President,
when I am President, I will…with the distant time (2009, 2010, 2012,
2020, 2025, 2030) as a method of presupposing that she will be
6


President in the coming term or even she will be re-elected for the
following terms. Also, it is presupposed that her economic policy will
keep valuable for the next generations and she will take action right
when she holds power. It is shown through her saying-when I am
president, when I become President, or as President - that she was selfconfident in the competition with Barack Obama for the Democratic
presidential nomination, and then in the general election for the term of
2009-2013. She says this when no one could know whether she would
defeat Barack Obama in the competition for the Democratic
presidential nomination, let alone the competition in the US
Presidential general election for the term 2009-2013. The result has
been left open since the competition has not been decided at the time of

writing this paper. However, still she said as President and when I am
President, I will… as if she is going to win the election very soon.
Parallel with as President and when I am President, the first pronoun
subject I in combination with the modal verb will was also used
repeatedly, which could present her decisiveness in taking action.
Additionally, I want to act quickly contributed to be a good evidence
for proving her quality of being decisive. Normally it is supposed that
the quality of being decisive can hardly be found in women in general,
but that is part of the male character. Hillary is an ordinary woman in
her life. However, she is a successful female politician and long-term
feminist. Therefore, more or less she has power and leadership capacity
in the field of politics. It is thanks to her skillful choice of using the
language to present male discourse that her capacity of leading and
power of a president could be shown through goals she set for America.
From the set goals and her leadership, things would change to the
better due to her new policies for reducing the impacts of using much
7


energy on the environment, which proves her potential in the role of
president.

4.3. Clarity:
Clarity means the quality or state of being clear and exact in giving
ideas or providing information. Being claimed by Thomas et all (2004),
the idea is that unlike men, women talk much but just little information
can be provided. Nevertheless, Hillary did not talk in a women’s way,
which is proved through the following sentences: On Wednesday, I will
outline in greater detail the ways… Tomorrow, I will be in Newton
outlining my energy jobs agenda. The second piece of my agenda asks

the national government to set the rules and lead the way. Third, I will
ask automakers to play a role. Forth, we’ll ask the oil companies to do
their part …
She used the way of men’s talk to address her speech. She wanted
either to focus on giving her audience information stated in her speech
or to make herself clear in giving information. Her language was rather
clear and the speech became more coherent in discourse through the
use of transition words and other markers such as second, third, forth,
or the time determiners such as Wednesday, tomorrow. She provided a
clear-cut action plan, through which her leadership ability and
responsibilities for the country would be performed in the role of
President, making herself more powerful through her requirements and
task assignments to individuals and all functional agencies by using
direct request I will require.... In short, the information she intended to
bring her audience was very clearly stated through a clear-cut agenda
with the specific time and concretely assigned tasks in the action plan.
8


4.4. Male – topic focus:
Male topics are considered to be impersonal, based on technical
knowledge or factual, for example, sports, cars, home improvements.
The installation of solar and cold resistant glass and other
improvements, reduce utility bill 30% …air conditioner, dishwasher,
dryer, car and technology … phase out the incandescent light bulb develop the replacements – from L.E.D.s to compact fluorescents. …
These are vehicles that can be filled up at the gas station and charged
up in a standards outlet. A vehicle powered by electricity release onethird less global warming pollution, even if the electricity comes from
coal. These cars can offer the promise of 100 miles to the gallon. And if
the plug-in in a flex-fuel vehicle running on E85 ethanol, it could
potentially travel 500 miles for every gallon of gas consumed.

Thus, based on the definition of male topic mentioned earlier, it could
be seen that the topics Hillary mentioned in her speech are male topics.
She spoke about the things, which are based on the technical
knowledge, for instance, the installation of solar and cold resistant
glass, incandescent light bulb, fluorescents, vehicles, car, fuel, gas, airconditioner, dryer and dishwasher. In fact, she explained and showed
people the way to save power and energy by developing and using
other replacements: good macro-strategic solution in dealing with the
environmental issues, contributing to conserve our earth. By doing so,
people not only found her to be a knowledgeable woman but also a
visionary president with a strategic mind of deep thoughts.
Furthermore, by speaking about that kind of topic, she could show
people her good knowledge of technology science and some other
fields. The quality of being knowledgeable is considered a strong point
to be elected a leader.
9


5. CONCLUSION:
Some of aspects of male discourse have been found on my analysis of
Hillary Clinton’s speech on energy and climate change, such as
directiveness, decisiveness, clarity, and male –topic focus. Her choice
of using these aspects of male discourse in the speech on a global issue
– energy and climate change – is not explained by the supposition that
she has male character, but by her need to make herself as equally
powerful and professional as male politicians in the way of leading the
country.
The essay has provided a brief analysis of the way she used those
aspects of male discourse in her speech in order to make the delivery of
her speech more effective in terms of providing information to
audience, and at the same time, to help consolidate her position and

strengthen her potential of being president through her showing power
and leadership capacity. What could be seen is that she performed the
characteristics of male language smoothly in her speech, which neither
presented her imitating men in language use nor showed her intention
of leading man-oriented characteristics but did help her to show herself
to be a powerful woman, contributing to persuade her American
citizens to back and vote for her in the coming election. The fact is that
female language with hedging, indirect requests, empty adjectives and
more apology cannot be used in a political speech because it can make
speakers seem less powerful, and listeners may think speakers are in
some low status. However, male discourse is more effectively used in
the area of politics, which can make speakers more powerful and
decisive, which makes it easier for them to become leaders.

10


REFERENCES

Keith, G. and J. Shuttleworth. 2000. Living language (2nd edition).
London: Hodder Murray.

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and women’s place. New York: Harper and
Row.

11


O’Barr, W.M. and B.K. Atkins. “Women’s language or Powerless
language?.” Language and Gender: A reader. Ed. Coates J. Oxford:

Blackwell, 1998. 377-387.

Coates J., ed. Language and gender: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell,
1998.

Thomas et al. 2004. Language, Society and Power. London: Routledge.

Fishman, P. “Interaction: The work women do.” Language, Gender
and Society. Ed. Thorne, B., C. Kramarae and N. Henley. Cambridge,
MA: Newburry House, 1983. 89-101.

Thorne, B., C. Kramarae and N. Henley. Eds. Language, Gender and
Society. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House, 1983.

Coates, J. 1986. Women, Men and Language. New York: Longman.
Tannen, D. 1990. You just don’t understand: Women and men in
Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.

Arin, B. and M. Sifianou. 2001. Linguistics and Politeness Across
Boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.

12


Datasegment.Online dictionary. 2003. Collaborative International
Dictionary of English v.0.48, March 08 2008.
< />ss>

Clinton, H. 2007. Hillaryclinton.com. ENERGY AND CLIMATE

CHANGE: Comprehensive Strategy to Address the Climate and Energy
Challenge. February 02, 2008.
< />id=4059>

13


APPENDIX

November 5, 2007

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Comprehensive Strategy to
Address the Climate and Energy Challenge
Thank you all so much. Thank you Senator Hogg. Thank you all for
being here. This is such an exciting day because we are in this facility
being part of the future that we will make together for our country. I
want to thank Senator Hogg because he has campaigned on climate
change, he has campaigned on renewable energy, he's campaigned on
the future we need for our children.
And I'm thrilled to have so many others here with me today. I want to
thank County Supervisor Jim Houser. I want to thank Justin Shields
14


from the Hawkeye Labor Council. I want to thank State Representative
Swati Dandekar, I want to thank State Representative Todd Taylor. I
want to thank my dear friend Christie Vilsack who's with me and I
want to especially thank Clipper Windpower because other people are
talking and you're doing. You're making it happen.
I have been looking forward to being here because I know how

important it is that those of us who are running for President, asking the
good people of Iowa for your support, that we tell you what we will do
when we're President to deal with the big problems facing America.
And today I want to focus on energy and climate change.
Two years ago as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation, I
traveled to Barrow, Alaska. That's the northern most point of the United
States. And I also traveled through on my way there the Yukon
Territory in Canada. Traveling over those vast coniferous forests that
blanket those harsh unforgiving latitudes, I looked down to see dead
trees as far as the eye could reach. These trees are part of an ecosystem
formed to survive brutal conditions. But the giant spruce trees of the
Yukon, some centuries old, are no match for a relative newcomer: a
tiny insect known as the bark beetle. The forests, it turns out, were once
protected by cold, cold winters. The beetle could not survive. But
warmer temperatures have allowed this invasive species to travel into
higher latitudes and wreak unnatural havoc. In once pristine forests,
there was devastation. Millions of acres infested. Whole swaths of land
- once green - now brown.
When we arrived in Barrow, virtually everyone I spoke to had a
personal wake up call about what was happening in the climate. A visit
to a boyhood watering hole revealed a dried up lakebed. A native
15


village uprooted by erosion. I met lifelong participants in dogsled races
who told me they no longer even needed to wear gloves during those
races. At the top of the world, you hear stories -- affirmed by decades
of scientific investigation - of changing weather patterns, melting ice,
retreating glaciers, unprecedented wildfires, eroding coasts, and
invasive species. You can see the evidence with your own eyes. There

are no climate change skeptics inside the Arctic Circle.
Of course, this is a story about a place thousands of miles from here, in
one of the most remote regions of our planet. But I share it because it is
not an isolated experience any longer. It is a part of our story. It is part
of Iowa's story and America's story. Alarming climate changes, a
stagnant economy, our health weakened, our national security
compromised -- because of our failure to move to a clean, efficient
energy future.
It is our story because the climate crisis portends drastic changes to our
way of life. The last two decades of the 20th century were the hottest in
400 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that
11 of the past 12 years are among the warmest since 1850. Rising sea
levels along the coastal United States could cost $170 billion in the
coming decades. Beyond our shores, you have African countries
experiencing water stress, Asian countries contending with increasing
flooding.
It's our story because our dependence on foreign oil threatens our
economy. America's national and economic security has taken a
backseat to the driver's seat. Gas prices have doubled over the past six
years. Nationwide, diesel recently hit an all-time high. You know

16


gasoline prices, depending upon where you shop, are around $3 a
gallon.
Two thirds of Americans now say that rising gas prices are a hardship
for their families. One in four low income families have already missed
a mortgage or a rent payment because of rising energy costs.
Meanwhile, we are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were

on 9/11. And one third of our trade deficit is the petroleum we import,
as we transfer massive amounts of wealth to undemocratic
governments that use those funds to stifle opposition and finance
extremism.
It's our story because the carbon economy compromises our health, the
air we breathe, and the environment in which we raise our children.
One study found that pollution from power plants causes 24,000
premature deaths in our country each year. Nearly a third of our
childhood asthma cases are caused by air pollution and environmental
contamination.
And finally, it's our story because the President has systematically
undermined our path to a clean energy future.
Instead of recognizing the irrefutable evidence, this Administration has
launched a war on science itself. Political appointees have censored
studies on global warming, silenced climate experts. According to a
survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists, nearly three fourths of
climate experts witnessed inappropriate interference in climate
research. And just this past March, the Administration issued a gag
order to employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service forbidding them to
speak about the plight of polar bears without prior official approval.

17


Instead of an all out optimistic assault on the problem, the Bush
Administration launched an assault on the problem solvers. The
President took seven years to recognize climate change. He refused
really to engage in talks with other global leaders at the United Nations
and even tried to stop individual states from taking their own action to
reduce CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

This is the biggest challenge we have faced in a generation. It is a
challenge to our economy, to our security, to our health, and to our
planet. And it's time for America to meet it. It is time to get back into
the solutions business. And that is what America does better than
anybody else.
You know, when America confronted a Great Depression, we did not
wring our hands. We rolled up our sleeves. Try rolling up your sleeves
while you're wringing your hands. It can't be done. And we created the
New Deal and invented Social Security. When the Greatest Generation
was called upon to save the world from tyranny in World War II, our
whole country responded. While young men fought overseas,
Americans did their part to support the war effort here at home.
When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, we didn't minimize the
challenge or silence the scientists who wanted to get out and meet it.
Instead, within one year, President Eisenhower had created the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, created NASA, and passed the
National Defense Education Act that fostered the next generation of
scientists and engineers. Our nation was so united and determined that
we answered President Kennedy's call to land an American on the
moon and return him safely to earth within the decade.

18


For this generation of Americans, climate change is our Space Race. It
is our home-front mobilization during World War II and it is our
response to the Great Depression. According to studies, the negative
economic consequences of climate change will affect every part of our
country, virtually every sector of our economy, and strain our local
governments, cost jobs, and extract a horrific human toll. I'm very

proud that Vice President Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change just won the Nobel Peace Prize for sounding the alarm
that all of us must respond to.
There are also security implications. A group of retired 3 and 4-star
generals and admirals issued a recent report describing in detail the
threat that global warming poses to our national security, from
increased conflict over natural resources to instability and migrations.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed my legislation to require the
Department of Defense to integrate this issue into our planning.
And for those who still believe that we can't afford to tackle climate
change, the price of inaction is far higher than the price of action. I
believe America is ready to take action, to break the bonds of the old
energy economy, to prove that the climate crisis is one of the great
economic opportunities in the history of our country. Seizing it will
unleash a wave of innovation, create millions of new jobs, enhance our
security, and lead the world in a revolution in how we produce and use
energy. It can literally be a new beginning for the 21st century.
After 35 years of advocacy on behalf of children and families, I believe
solving the climate and energy crisis is critical to leaving our children a
world as healthy and welcoming as the one we inherited.

19


After eight years in the White House and seven years in the Senate, I
believe I know how to get the job done. I know that a true American
response offers us a way not just to bridge the economic divide, but to
heal the partisan divide that has paralyzed our politics and
compromised our future. There is something for everyone to do, and
success will require each of us do our part. So, if you're ready for

change, I am ready to lead.
When I am President, we will set three major energy goals for America.
One, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels
by 2050, the amount necessary to avoid the most dangerous and
destructive consequences of climate change.
Two, to cut foreign oil imports by two thirds from projected levels by
2030 to move America toward energy independence.
And three, to move us from a carbon-based economy to an efficient,
green economy by unleashing a wave of private-sector innovation in
clean energy and energy efficiency. I believe that will create at least
five million good new jobs from clean energy over the next decade.
Now, how will we achieve these goals? Well, first, as President, I will
lead a national commitment to energy efficiency. This is the cheapest,
cleanest, fastest way to reduce energy consumption and save energy
costs, and to create good new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
The Department of Energy estimates that we can reduce energy use in
residential buildings 20% by 2020. We can do better than that I believe.
By some estimates all the future growth in energy demand in North
America, all of it, could be met through investments in efficiency
alone. And we know how to do this.
20


Since 1970, three-fourths of all new demand has been met simply by
using energy more efficiently. Over the past three decades, California
has held its electricity use per person flat. In other words, there's been
no increase in electricity use per person in the entire state of California
for 30 years. They've done it through practical steps in conservation
and efficiency.
During the same 30 year period, energy demand in the rest of country,

skyrocketed by 50%. California's flat. We've all gone up 50%.
Now, did California get left behind? Did people flee California because
it was no longer a good place to live? Just the opposite. It has
prospered. A study released earlier this year by the University of
California Berkeley found that cutting greenhouse gas emissions to
1990 levels by 2020, through further improvements in efficiency, could
create more than 1 million new jobs in California alone. And if
American electricity use had fallen at the same rate as California use,
our whole country would be using 43% less electricity today. So when
I'm President, increasing energy efficiency quickly will be priority one.
We will set a goal of reducing electricity demands 20% by 2020.
We must change the way utilities make money. Today the incentives
are backwards. The less we conserve, the more carbon we emit, the
more money utilities earn. We'll change that with energy efficiency
targets for utilities and incentives for saving power instead of
generating more of it. This seemingly simple change, called
decoupling, has transformational potential because utilities are in the
best position to help businesses and families make investments in
efficiency. Fourteen states already have some form of efficiency goals
for utilities and more utilities are embracing that as well. Decoupling
21


permits a utility to invest in efficiency. Duke Power and other utilities
have committed to go beyond that. They are offering energy audits to
all of their customers. They're helping their customers come up with
plans to cut consumption and to finance the implementation over 20 to
30 years, as if efficiency gains were mini-power plants.
It works like this: the installation of solar power and cold resistant
glass and other improvements cut your utility bill 30%. The utility pays

the upfront cost of those improvements and then a portion of the
efficiency savings goes to you to cut your bills, and the other goes to
the utilities to pay off the cost of the improvement.
You get a lower utility bill, they get more power with no more CO2
emissions. In the process a lot of jobs are created - installing the new
product, manufacturing, distributing and selling. The system is user
friendly, faster, cheaper and more labor-intensive than building a new
power plant.
A lot of people who build things for a living, say 'well, but if we don't
keep building power plants, we're going to lose jobs.' It's just the
contrary. If we're building millions of mini-power plants we're going to
create more jobs. That's what I want to see for us. Once we have
nationwide decoupling, every utility should implement this type of
system and maximize efficiency before building any new power plants.
And that's just the beginning. At your office, you probably have a
desktop computer, a thousand times more powerful and half the price
than computers available 20 years ago. An i-pod can hold more songs
than you can listen to in a month. We can talk to anyone, anywhere, at
any time using 21st century information technology, which has
transformed our economy. But all of this depends on a power grid all
22