Energy Sample Interview Question 2: Strategizing About Climate Change

“So what do you think should be done about global warming?” 

For an environmentally-oriented or public advocacy job, this question could be the crux of your interview.  In an oil or electricity company, you might be asked a question like this in the guise of a fit interview or seemingly innocuous hallway chit-chat.  But, you need to be aware that even idle conversations are part of your interview and the impression you make on the prospective employer.  

First, be aware of your audience.  Interviews are a time to be honest and not misrepresent yourself, but at the same time they are not a platform for any strong, politically-motivated views you may have.   You want to be honest so that you don’t end up getting hired and working for a company filled with people who radically disagree with your own beliefs – but at the same time you do want to get a job. 

A balanced, carefully reasoned argument about the climate change issue should always be acceptable, no matter where the company’s incentives lie. For example, a coal company should be willing to hear you say that the preponderance of evidence is toward warming and that you believe their industry is sufficiently innovative to develop technology solutions to the problem.  Similarly, a wind generation company should be willing to hear you point out that wind cannot be the entire answer, because windpower plants cannot be built in sufficient quantities to fully offset fossil-fired generation, and they are only cost-competitive in very large installations that local 

residents often oppose.  

Secondly, make sure you provide a structured answer.  Energy companies are notorious for having less formal interviews, where the interviewer isn’t prepared with a formal case question and may not have specific criteria against which to evaluate you.  But an apparently casual question nonetheless deserves an organized response. 

In this case, a good answer could proceed with an exchange such as the following: 

Candidate: “Well, the way I see it, if we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a society, we have three alternatives: 

•  We can switch to low-carbon  fuels 

•  We can extract carbon dioxide from the emissions streams of fossil fuels 

•  We can find ways to use less fuel period, and thus produce less carbon dioxide 

Switching to low-carbon fuels involves building more renewables, like wind and solar.  Some people advocate nuclear as carbon- free option too.  And then the long-term vision of a low-carbon fuel solution would of course be the proverbial hydrogen economy- fuel cells running off hydrogen produced by renewable energy.  In the short term, developing the natural gas sector is another relatively low-carbon approach, since natural gas produces a lot less carbon than coal does.” 

Interviewer: “Hmm.  The problem with focusing on natural gas is that it becomes a crutch fuel and we get stuck with that interim solution 

permanently.” 

Candidate: “True – that is a possible scenario.  Which would necessitate exploring our second option simultaneously: extracting carbon from the waste streams of the fossil fuels we use.   Carbon sequestration technology is advancing and getting more cost effective, and to be realistic, next generation clean coal technology can be useful in reducing emissions too.  Ultimately, though, I think most of our near-term opportunities for emissions reduction fall in the third category of simply using less fuel.” 

Interviewer: “That’s certainly a popular opinion.  How easy do you think it really is to simply ‘use less’as you say?” 

Candidate: “Well, it is disturbing that with energy use correlated to economic growth, the much-needed economic growth expected in developing countries will drive a massive increase in total energy consumption.  However, I for one am a firm believer that energy efficiency often pays for itself and thus is not a difficult sell.  I’m very hopeful about continuing improvements in internal combustion engine and turbine efficiency, efficient natural gas fuel cells, the expanded use of cogeneration, and recovering 

otherwise wasted landfill and flare gas as fuel.  The telecommuting trend may even make a palpable dent in the total amount of driving.” 

Interviewer: “So you think that improving gas mileage in our SUVs can offset the industrialization of the third world?” 

Candidate: “It’s a tough problem, as you point out.  I’ll be the first to acknowledge that.  The solution probably has to come simultaneously from many of these changes: switching to low-carbon fuels, extracting carbon from emissions, and reducing consumption.  No one action could be sufficient to realize the amount of reductions people are talking about.” 

What makes this answer a good one?  This candidate organized thoughts into three categories, and answered the question according to the pyramid principle of communication:  summarize your argument at a high level first, then provide the detailed supporting examples and logic.  The candidate was able to use the interviewer’s interjections and questions to guide the discussion back to the original three points and stay on message.  When challenged by the interviewer in a possibly argumentative fashion, this candidate responded well – she maintained a balance between conceding the interviewer’s point, yet also standing firm to her own well-reasoned opinion. To close out the discussion, the candidate made sure to reiterate the original main point of her answer. 

Now, for many people looking for their first job in the energy sector, the level of detail in the model answer above may not be realistic.  What’s most important, though, is not demonstrating that you can rattle off twelve solutions to an environmental problem that has confounded our society for years, but demonstrating that you understand the concepts and broad categories of possible actions.  If you are asked a question that seems to require a lot of detailed content knowledge that you don’t feel you have, then say so.  Fair interviewers should generally have no problem with your saying, “I don’t feel like I have all the facts on this issue to make a judgment.  Could 

you walk me through some of the details of the issue first?”