This was not a summit on energy conservation, although sustainability was mentioned in light of how long the energy alternatives would maintain our current and future needs. For example, Tom Price, of Chesapeake Energy, had stated that natural gas reserves could keep us going another 100 years. Not surprisingly, energy needs were always shown as increasing over time.

While increasing demand might be a favorable model for any manufacturer discussing their business growth, increasing energy use is a new challenge. What other examples can you think of where a mass produced product was being blamed on a global crisis? If we weren’t so addicted to cheap energy, these companies would likely be out of business. Is it a stretch to ask a manufacturer to help their customers use less of their products?

I asked the Larry Nichols, one of the panelists and CEO of Devon Energy, what, if any, research is being done by Devon and the energy industry towards increasing efficiencies in production and use. “As an example, what if natural gas could keep us going for the next 200 years,” I asked. His answer was obvious: whether discussing production efficiencies, conservation policy, or any industry research, it is consumer driven.

As long as the company stakeholders require profits, policy supports free markets, and consumers demand cheap energy, Devon and other energy producers have no incentive for reducing consumer use.

Perhaps it was silly to ask a conservation question at an energy summit convened by leading energy producers. But I wanted to know if there was anything Devon and the energy industry could do to curb our own addiction for cheap energy. Mr Nichols reminds us that we must face addictive behaviors on our own. In the meantime, it will be business as usual for the energy industry.

If I am not willing to make significant changes in my own use of energy, why should I expect the energy industry to change their practices?

Here’s some news for you: our economy (as you know it), our culture (as you know it), and our values (as you know many of them) are being destroyed by a new global, connected ecosystem, as Weinberger calls it. Just face it. The world is changing at a pace largely suitable for those under the age of twenty. But economy, culture, and values do not just disappear. They will be replaced, and it is the responsibility of those over twenty to understand the processes of change in order to skillfully help shape the new world economy, culture, and the formation of new values.

Reject the change, and you will be run over. But those who do understand change know: listen to your dissenters. Dave Weinberger knows this well.

The scores of students who had taken economics courses were not necessarily higher than those who had not. On average, students who had taken Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or an honors course in economics scored marginally higher than students who had taken no economics at all, but students who had taken “consumer economics” or business courses scored lower.

In particular, look at the very last comment. How is it that taking “consumer economics” is a detriment to knowledge of economics? Where, in fact, they are learning economics? Parents? Peers? Keeping copies of the Wall Street Journal under their beds?

Parents are a factor:I’m going to take a wild guess at the other source: social participative media and online networks.

Economics forces are heavily tied to media and the internet. Kids are using online communities to share knowledge of products and companies are targeting the online market heavily. These kids are not just passive audiences. They share and communicate about what would be cool to have, compare products, and what it takes to get there hands on products that are easily out of their economic range. Companies quiz teens about market trends and buying patterns.

They are thinking economics. But no one ever calls it “economics” online or in school hallways. This is authentic learning at its best.