Influence Energetics: A Paradigm Shift from Communication to Thermodynamic Work

Abstract

In an era where digital technologies—culminating in generative AI—have driven content production costs toward zero, traditional metrics of influence—views, shares, followers—have become fundamentally inadequate. We introduce Influence Energetics, a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes influence not as information diffusion, but as thermodynamic work: the transformation of potential energy into observable structural changes in social systems. Drawing on principles from thermodynamics, network science, and institutional theory, we demonstrate that influence operates through four fundamental mechanisms—conservation, conversion, threshold effects, and storage—and that its magnitude is determined not by how far information spreads, but by whether it crosses systemic barriers to reshape policy, capital flows, and institutional frameworks. Through analysis of cases ranging from the #StopWillow campaign's 412 million TikTok views (which failed to alter policy) to the concept of "assisted migration" (which transformed provincial forestry guidelines with minimal public attention), we show that the shift from communication-centric to work-centric measurement is not merely semantic but operational. This framework offers practitioners in climate action, policy advocacy, and institutional change a diagnostic lens to distinguish energy circulation from thermodynamic work—a critical distinction in an age of infinite content and finite influence.

I. The Systematic Failure of Traditional Metrics

1.1 Three Classic Paradoxes

Traditional communication theory rests on an implicit equation: more exposure equals greater influence. The reality of the 2020s has shattered this assumption through three recurring paradoxes that existing frameworks cannot adequately explain.

Paradox 1: Viral Silence—The Case of #StopWillow

In March 2023, the hashtag #StopWillow exploded across TikTok, protesting the Biden administration's approval of the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska. The campaign generated 412.3 million video views and mobilized 3.3 million petition signatures—by traditional metrics, a communications triumph. Three months later, the project proceeded as planned. No policy change materialized. No capital flows shifted. Even organizational recruitment for participating NGOs showed no significant uptick.

Traditional explanation: The content quality was insufficient, or timing was wrong. But if 412 million views and 3.3 million signatures are insufficient, what threshold would suffice?

Our diagnostic metrics tell a different story:

• Traditional metrics: 412.3M views, 3.3M signatures, 15 media mentions
• Our metrics: Policy Trace Count (PTC) = 0, Capital Reallocation Index (CRI) ≈ 0, Cross-Domain Resonance (CDR) = 1.02 (98% of propagation remained within climate activist circles)

Traditional metrics declared success; our metrics revealed failure. The contradiction exposes a measurement crisis. The energy never left the system. It circulated within an echo chamber, accumulating no potential to overcome institutional barriers.

Paradox 2: The Sleeping Beauty Effect

Consider the phenomenon epidemiologists call "sleeper papers"—publications that attract minimal attention upon release but become foundational references years later when external events create receptive conditions. The mechanism mirrors what occurred with climate adaptation research.

In 2014, the Council of Economic Advisers published a technical report on the economic costs of delaying climate action. Initial readership: approximately 800 (mostly specialists). Citation count after one year: 3. Traditional metrics would classify this as a failed communication.

Then COVID-19 restructured policy discourse around systemic risk and delayed-cost accounting. By 2022, that same report had been cited in 47 policy documents across 8 countries, including three IMF working papers that directly informed pandemic recovery spending frameworks. The content itself had not changed. What changed was the opening of an "event window" that activated dormant potential energy.

Our diagnostic:

• Traditional metrics: 2014 views = 800, 2022 views = 78,000 (appears to be "from failure to success")
• Our metrics: 2014 PTC = 0 but high-quality citations = 3 (potential energy stored), 2022 PTC ≥ 15, CRI significant increase (same potential energy, delayed release)

Traditional metrics saw two separate phenomena; our metrics identified one continuous energy transformation. The apparent reversal reveals traditional theory's temporal blindness.

Paradox 3: The Content Deluge and the Influence Drought

In 2023, generative AI made it possible to produce 100 articles on climate policy in the time it previously took to write one. Content production has scaled exponentially. Marc Andreessen observed that "software that used to cost $1 million to build now costs $1,000." Spotify's CEO noted that "the cost of making content is going to zero."

Yet policy impact has not scaled proportionally. In fact, the ratio of content to structural change has collapsed.

Our diagnostic:

• Traditional metrics: Content production volume ↑ 1000x
• Our metrics: Content achieving PTC > 0 or CRI > 0 has fallen to < 0.1% of total volume; most mass-produced content exhibits CDR < 1.1 (trapped in single communities), Semantic Adoption Rate (SAR) ≈ 0 (no one rephrases the framework in their own words)

Traditional metrics celebrate abundance; our metrics diagnose dilution. When content supply vastly exceeds attention capacity, each unit of content receives a vanishingly small share of potential energy. Local saturation drives marginal thermodynamic work toward zero.

1.2 The Collapse of Three Foundational Assumptions

These paradoxes expose the failure of three assumptions underlying traditional communication theory—assumptions that held in an era of content scarcity but disintegrate in an age of content abundance.

Assumption 1: Linear Accumulation (More Exposure = Greater Influence)

Collapse: When attention becomes the scarce resource, content saturation produces diminishing marginal returns. One million in-group shares < 100 cross-domain citations. Influence is not additive; it is phase-transitional.

Assumption 2: Homogeneous Audience (All Views Are Equivalent)

Collapse: One policymaker's reading ≠ 10,000 casual browsers. Cross-domain propagation value >> in-group circulation. Structural position > follower count.

Assumption 3: Immediate Effect (Influence Is Contemporaneous)

Collapse: Potential energy can be stored for years, awaiting event windows for instantaneous activation. Content half-life and window-matching > immediate virality.

1.3 Core Thesis

In an age of attention scarcity, the essence of influence is no longer "being seen" (exposure) but "being used" (thermodynamic work)—the measurable structural change produced within social systems.

By “thermodynamic work,” we mean measurable structural impact—policy traces, capital reallocation, or institutional adoption.

More precisely: The scarcity in influence no longer lies in "who can speak" but in "which narratives social systems operationalize." Influence Energetics proposes: Influence equals thermodynamic work. We measure not the distance of diffusion but how potential energy transforms into structural change.

II. Core Insight: Influence as Energy Flow, Not Information Flow

2.1 Why the "Energy" Lens Is Operationally Necessary

Physics introduced the concept of "energy" because "motion" alone could not explain conservation, conversion, and work. A ball rolling 10 meters does not necessarily perform work on its environment; it may merely glide across a frictionless surface.

Communication similarly requires transcending "motion metrics" (clicks, shares) to focus on "thermodynamic work"—the essential variable. This is not a metaphor but an operational framework. We borrow thermodynamic principles not because social systems obey physical laws, but because energy-based reasoning provides a more powerful diagnostic lens than motion-based metrics. The "conservation" we describe is not absolute—credibility can be created through consistent action or destroyed through betrayal—but within operational timeframes, these resources exhibit scarcity constraints that resemble conservation. Content propagating 2 million times does not necessarily change the world; it may merely echo within a closed loop.

Claude Shannon's information theory solved the "channel transmission efficiency" problem (how information flows without distortion). Influence Energetics addresses the "social work efficiency" problem (how influence actually materializes).

The two are complementary, not substitutive.

2.2 Four Essential Characteristics of Influence Energy

Influence obeys four governing principles: conservation (finite credibility), conversion (barrier-crossing required), threshold effects (non-linear), temporal storage (hibernation possible).

Characteristic 1: Conservation

Credibility, network position, and event windows are finite resources; depletion follows overuse.

Key insight: There is no "free viral propagation." Every instance of influence consumes some form of potential energy—your credibility, your network nodes' trust, or the attention capacity of an event window. When an influencer "collapses" , associated product trust disintegrates instantly. This is the sudden negative release of potential energy.

Characteristic 2: Convertibility

Attention can convert to trust; trust to authority; authority to policy and capital.

Key insight: Each conversion requires overcoming structural barriers and paying "conversion costs." Seeing ≠ believing. Believing ≠ citing. Citing ≠ adopting. Attention → trust requires consistency verification. Trust → authority requires cross-domain recognition. Authority → policy requires legitimization pathways.

Characteristic 3: Threshold Effects

Influence is not linear accumulation but phase transition at critical points.

Key insight: Water at 99°C is not "nearly boiling" but "not yet boiling." At 100°C, it does not become "slightly hotter" but "transforms into steam." Content circulating within a community is not "almost crossing over" but "still contained." Breaking through community boundaries is not "spreading wider" but "completing an energy-level transition."

Characteristic 4: Storability

Content's potential energy can "hibernate" for months or years, awaiting external event windows for instantaneous activation.

Key insight: Influence = potential energy × window-matching coefficient, not immediate virality. A 2019 paper "failing" pre-pandemic but "succeeding" post-pandemic reflects the same potential energy in different release states. Traditional theory measures "current heat"; we measure "potential energy half-life."

Potential energy half-life: The time required for the probability of authoritative adoption or citation to decline to half its initial value, absent new propagation inputs.

2.3 Three-Component Energy Structure (P-K-W Framework)

Influence energy exists and converts in three forms:

Potential Energy (P): Accumulated Order Reserves

Primary indicator: Authoritative endorsements (high-quality citations)

Secondary indicators: Network position (cross-domain bridging capacity), discourse familiarity (cognitive cost for readers to grasp your framework)

Physical analogy: Water stored at elevation in a pumped-storage hydroelectric facility

Kinetic Energy (K): Entropy-Reducing Actions Within Event Windows

Primary indicator: Cross-Domain Resonance (CDR)—content's capacity to traverse community boundaries

Secondary indicators: Secondary articulation (external actors rephrasing your framework in their own words), behavioral triggers (registrations, donations, petitions—observable actions)

Physical analogy: Kinetic energy of falling water

Thermodynamic Work (W): Measurable Establishment of New Order

Primary indicators: Policy Trace Count (PTC)—appearance in official or semi-official texts—or Capital Reallocation Index (CRI)—changes in budget or investment directions

Secondary indicators: Institutional solidification (establishment of new agencies, positions, standards)

Physical analogy: Water driving a turbine, converting energy to electricity

The fundamental shift:

Traditional theory asks: "How far did it spread?" (measuring motion)

New theory asks: "What thermodynamic work did it perform?" (measuring structural change)

III. Explanatory Power: Five Phenomena Traditional Theory Cannot Explain

3.1 Phenomenon 1: Attention Collapse Under Content Abundance

Observation: Total content volume ↑ 1000x, total exposure continues growing, yet policy influence ↓

Traditional theory: "More exposure = more influence"—invalidated

Our explanation: Total potential energy conservation. When content supply vastly exceeds attention capacity, per-unit content potential energy approaches zero. Local saturation drives marginal thermodynamic work toward zero. It is not that "more exposure becomes useless" but that "total potential energy is diluted."

3.2 Phenomenon 2: Cold Start Paradox (External Potential Energy Borrowing)

Observation: Individuals like Greta Thunberg, with zero follower base, ignite global attention; similarly, certain newly founded think tanks see their first reports cited by governments

On August 20, 2018, a 15-year-old girl began a solitary school strike outside the Swedish Parliament. Within 16 months, she addressed the UN Climate Action Summit and catalyzed global youth climate strikes. Traditional metrics cannot explain how zero followers became global mobilization.

Traditional theory: "Requires follower accumulation"—cannot explain

Our explanation: They stand directly outside barriers. UN platforms, WEF forums have already breached E1-E4 barriers. They borrow external potential energy (long-term accumulation of climate movements, legitimacy of international institutions), not their own. This is not "personal miracle" but universal mechanism of "external potential energy borrowing."

External potential energy borrowing manifests in multiple forms: international organization platforms (UN, WEF), major foundation endorsements, top-tier journal publications, transnational alliances, and global summit windows. The mechanism is general; individual cases merely illustrate it.

3.3 Phenomenon 3: Time-Delay Paradox

Observation: Content released to no response, becoming classic citation 2 years later

Traditional theory: "Outdated yet popular?"—attributed to luck

Our explanation: Potential energy hibernation. High-quality content, even with low short-term propagation, stores potential energy through minimal authoritative citations, activating instantaneously when relevant event windows open. Like pumped-storage: store water (potential energy) during low-demand periods, release (work) during peak demand. Content value lies not in "current popularity" but "potential energy half-life duration."

3.4 Phenomenon 4: Reverse Propagation Paradox

Observation: Terms like "tipping points" or "carbon budgets" first appear in IPCC reports, later enter public discussion; pathway is "policy circles → media → public," not traditional "media → public → policy circles"

Traditional theory: Assumes propagation follows "media to public to elites"—inverted

Our explanation: Legitimacy potential energy precedes popular potential energy. Policy adoption creates legitimacy potential energy, reverse-lowering thresholds for public understanding and acceptance. Once a concept enters government white papers, media and public perceive "this is important," thus willing to invest attention. This is reverse energy flow: high-order systems (policy) transmitting potential energy to low-order systems (public opinion).

3.5 Phenomenon 5: Vast Gap Between In-Group Echo and Cross-Domain Breakthrough

Observation: 1 million in-group shares (CDR = 1.02) produce zero policy influence; 100 cross-domain citations (CDR = 3.5) alter three nations' policies

Consider the contrast: #StopWillow generated 412 million views yet changed nothing. Meanwhile, the concept of "assisted migration" in forestry—relocating tree species northward to match shifting climate zones—achieved perhaps 50,000 total views across academic papers and specialist publications, yet led Alberta's provincial government to revise seed transfer guidelines, affecting millions of hectares of forest management.

Traditional theory: Measures only volume, considers the former more influential

Our explanation: Influence is not quantitative accumulation but cross-system energy conversion. In-group propagation merely cycles energy within one system (entropy unchanged); cross-domain propagation is energy breaching barriers into new systems (thermodynamic work performed). One million in-group shares = "potential energy spinning in place." One hundred cross-domain citations = "potential energy converting to kinetic energy and performing thermodynamic work."

IV. Scientific Validity: How to Verify Influence Energetics?

4.1 Theoretical Predictions (Qualitative, Not Quantitative)

Any theory must face empirical testing. Influence Energetics is not mysticism but a testable set of propositions.

If Influence Energetics is valid, we should observe the following phenomena:

Phenomenon 1: Cross-domain propagation capacity highly correlates with policy influence

Content breaking through community boundaries (CDR significantly > 1) should exhibit Policy Trace Count (PTC) and Capital Reallocation Index (CRI) markedly higher than content confined to in-group circulation.

Phenomenon 2: High in-group exposure with low CDR struggles to breach policy thresholds

Content achieving million-level exposure within single communities but CDR < 1.2 should rarely appear in policy texts.

Phenomenon 3: Policy adoption typically follows "cross-system energy conversion"

Policy changes usually are not "directly triggered by single content" but "phase-transition results after multi-source cross-domain resonance accumulates to threshold."

Preliminary cross-case observations suggest: content with CDR significantly > 1 exhibits earlier PTC emergence compared to CDR ≈ 1 content. Systematic quantification awaits future research (methodology outlined in Appendix B).

4.2 Our Verification Approach (Humble Yet Traceable)

We do not make difficult-to-verify quantitative predictions (such as "publishing 3 months early produces 5-10x effect"). Instead, we build credibility through these methods:

Method 1: Self-Practice

We are applying this theory to guide the influence strategy of Terawatt Times Institute. We will periodically disclose our content's E-level assessments, key metrics (CDR, SAR, PTC), and actual impact, subjecting ourselves to empirical scrutiny. If our own practice under this theory consistently fails, the theory requires revision.

Method 2: Historical Case Reconstruction

We are systematically analyzing historical cases of "niche content transforming major policy" (such as "just transition" evolving from labor union terminology to global policy), reconstructing their propagation pathways using the Influence Energetics framework. If our framework cannot explain these canonical cases, the theory requires revision.

Method 3: Open Verification

We publicize our methodology (indicator definitions, level-assessment frameworks), welcoming other institutions, scholars, and practitioners to analyze their content using this framework. If the theory systematically fails across multiple practitioners, we will publicly acknowledge and revise it.

4.3 Core Commitment: This Is Science, Not Mysticism

We do not claim to have "mastered the secret of influence" or provide a "manual for manipulating public opinion." We propose "a testable set of hypotheses."

If reality does not support these hypotheses—if high in-group exposure content also massively influences policy, if cross-domain propagation bears no relation to policy impact, if we ourselves consistently fail using this theory in practice—we will revise it.

This is how science progresses.

V. Historical Significance: Why Now? Why This Framework?

While the principles of Influence Energetics apply across eras, generative AI and algorithmic amplification have acted as historical accelerants: by collapsing content production costs, they have made the gap between attention and thermodynamic work impossible to ignore. What was once a niche concern for policy advocates is now a universal challenge in an age of attention scarcity.

5.1 Ecological Niche Transformation in the Digital Abundance Era

Old Era (Content Production as Bottleneck):

• Scarce resource: Content production capacity
• Competition strategy: Who can produce more and better content
• Influence source: Production capacity × distribution channels
• Typical case: A journalist requires 1 week to write an in-depth report

New Era (Attention as Bottleneck):

• Scarce resources: Attention, trust, semantic uniqueness
• Competition strategy: Who can more effectively convert energy
• Influence source: Energy conversion rate × structural position
• Typical case: Digital tools can generate 100 "in-depth report-like" articles in 10 minutes

Essential change: From "production bottleneck" to "conversion bottleneck"

When content production costs approach zero, audiences no longer ask "Is this an in-depth report?" but "Why should I trust you?" Influence competition shifts from "who can speak" to "who speaks and is believed."

5.2 Humanity's Unique Value: The Legitimacy Interface

What Algorithmic Systems Can Do: Mass-generate content, rapidly disseminate information, occupy distribution nodes

Humanity's Irreplaceable Scarce Value:

In any information-abundant environment, narratives require legitimization through accountable actors. Humans serve as the "legitimacy interface"—not because AI exists, but because trust requires responsibility.

Guarantee: Humans confer meaning on content; bestowing accountability

Bridge: Humans filter signal from noise; connecting academia, policy, capital, and public

Judgment: Humans trigger thermodynamic work; deciding which objectives merit optimization

AI-generated content inherently lacks trust. Only when humans endorse it with their identity, credibility, and network position can content transcend the "information" stage and enter the "influence" stage.

This is why, in an age of attention scarcity, human value is not diminished but redefined: from "content producers" to "energy conversion nodes."

5.3 Paradigm Transformation in Influence Competition (Cautiously Stated)

We are witnessing a profound transformation in influence production methods, potentially comparable in significance to the printing press's impact on communication:

First Transformation (Writing Invention, ~5000 Years Ago): Influence could be stored across time and space Result: Emergence of classics, authority, orthodoxy

Second Transformation (Printing Press / Mass Media, ~500 Years Ago): Influence could be massively amplified Result: Emergence of public opinion, nation-states, ideologies

Third Transformation (Digital Abundance, Now): Influence competition shifts from production to conversion. Accelerated by generative AI, social media, and algorithmic distribution, this phase makes the conversion bottleneck starkly visible. Result: To be observed, but Influence Energetics is a new measurement tool for understanding this era

The mechanisms we describe are not new. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) exemplified potential energy storage and event-window activation decades before digital media. What has changed is the scale and visibility of these dynamics.

We do not claim to have discovered "social physics laws." We merely believe: When content production is no longer scarce, civilization requires new metrics for influence. Influence Energetics is our response to this need.

VI. The E-Scale Framework: Influence Energy-Level System

6.1 Basic Concept of the Energy-Level System

We have established an E-Scale energy-level system to measure influence transitions across different systems.

E does not represent "how many people received the message" (the old metric) but "which level of energy conversion was completed" (thermodynamic work).

Each E-level transition corresponds to breaching a structural barrier:

E1 to E2: From In-Community Consensus to Cross-Community Propagation

Barrier type: Community boundaries

Breakthrough marker: First instance of external community using original terminology

E3 to E4: From Specialized Discourse to Public Discourse

Barrier type: Cognitive threshold

Breakthrough marker: News media or public commentary rephrasing your framework

E5 to E6: From Opinion Event to Policy-Capital Flows

Barrier type: Interest reconfiguration

Breakthrough marker: Appearance in government documents or triggering investment direction changes

E7 to E8: From Discourse Permeation to Paradigm Rewriting

Barrier type: Civilizational inertia

Breakthrough marker: Entry into textbooks, standards, or platform rules

In summary:

• E1→E2: In-community consensus → First cross-domain rephrasing (breaking community barriers)
• E3→E4: Specialized discourse → Public discourse (breaking cognitive thresholds)
• E5→E6: Opinion events → Policy/capital flows (breaking interest reconfiguration)
• E7→E8: Discourse permeation → Paradigm rewriting (breaking civilizational inertia)

6.2 Key Indicators (Directional Definitions)

Traditional metrics measure "motion"; we measure "conversion."

Cross-Domain Resonance (CDR)

Definition: Content's capacity to traverse community boundaries

Direction: Based on network modularity and inter-community propagation pathways, calculating the ratio of cross-community to in-group propagation

Typical observation window: T = 30 days (cross-community exposure / total exposure)

Specific algorithms: Left to specialized researchers to develop according to different platforms and scenarios

Semantic Adoption Rate (SAR)

Definition: Rate at which external actors rephrase your framework in their own words

Direction: Tracking terminology and contextual patterns' emergence and evolution across different texts

Typical observation window: T = 90 days rolling (semantic rephrasing appearance frequency)

Specific algorithms: Requires combining NLP technology and manual verification

Policy Trace Count (PTC)

Definition: Frequency of appearance in official or semi-official texts

Direction: Through text mining and attribution analysis, identifying key terminology and frameworks in policy texts

Typical observation window: T = 12 months rolling (policy text corpus)

Specific algorithms: Requires establishing policy text corpora and attribution models

Capital Reallocation Index (CRI)

Definition: Changes in relevant budgets or investment directions

Direction: Through time-series analysis and difference-in-differences methods, estimating specific discourse's influence on capital flows

Typical observation window: Quarterly-level difference-in-differences (budget/investment direction changes)

Specific algorithms: Requires combining causal inference methods from economics

These observation windows are illustrative; optimal durations will vary by domain and require empirical calibration.

We provide conceptual definitions and computational directions. Specific measurement tools and algorithms require collaborative development by researchers in communication studies, computational social science, and data science.

We acknowledge that precise, automated computation of these indicators poses a significant but surmountable challenge. It calls for a new generation of analytical tools integrating network science, natural language processing, and causal inference. Our purpose here is not to provide those final tools but to define the correct questions those tools must answer. This is an invitation to computational social science, not a limitation of the theory.

6.3 Scope of Application (Defining Boundaries)

Influence Energetics is especially effective in "high-work-threshold" domains:

• Policy influence: Requires breaching institutional barriers
• Climate action: Requires cross-domain coordination
• Technology adoption: Requires standard-setting
• Paradigm transformation: Requires discourse reconstruction

For purely entertainment or consumption-oriented communication, traditional metrics (exposure, likes) may still suffice. But for influence that "changes the world," we need new metrics.

We do not claim this is a "universal theory." We only assert: In domains requiring "content transformation into institutions," Influence Energetics provides a more effective analytical framework.

This does not diminish mass mobilization. On the contrary, broad public attention is a powerful catalyst for elevating an issue's potential energy (P) and creating the event windows (K) necessary for policy change. Our framework insists only that this kinetic energy must ultimately convert into thermodynamic work (W)—a changed vote, a new regulation—to constitute realized influence. Mass movements are not ignored; they are essential energy sources in the conversion chain.

VII. Conclusion: Openness, Practice, Iteration

7.1 Our Position

Transparency: We publicize methodology, rejecting "influence black boxes"

Falsifiability: We accept empirical testing, rejecting dogmatism

Mission-orientation: We serve climate action, just transition, and civilizational resilience

7.2 Our Practice

Influence Energetics is not armchair theory. We are applying it to guide Terawatt Times Institute's influence strategy.

We commit to:

• Periodically disclosing our content's E-level assessments and key metrics
• Publicly revising the theory if practice under its guidance consistently fails
• Welcoming other institutions, scholars, and practitioners to use this framework and share results

We believe: A sound theory should first be validated in one's own hands before broader application.

7.3 Open Invitation

Influence Energetics is in its early stages. We have proposed a set of hypotheses and established an initial framework, but much remains incomplete.

We welcome:

• Verification: Testing this framework with your cases
• Challenge: Identifying our blind spots and errors
• Refinement: Proposing better indicators and methods

If this theory is correct, it will transform how we understand and operationalize influence.

If it is incorrect, then falsify it—this is how science progresses.

7.4 Closing Statement

In an age of attention scarcity, true scarcity lies not in "who can speak" but in "who speaks and performs thermodynamic work to change the world."

Appendix

The following appendices will be released in subsequent publications:

Appendix A: Detailed E-Scale Level-Assessment Framework

Appendix B: Definitions and Computational Approaches for Core Indicators (CDR, SAR, PTC, CRI)

Appendix C: Case Study—"Just Transition" from Labor Union Terminology to Global Policy (E1 to E7 Transition)

From the 1970s-1990s, labor activist Tony Mazzocchi coined the term to describe protecting workers during energy transitions. This 50-year trajectory—from union hall (E1) to UN preamble (E5) to global finance architecture (E7)—demonstrates E1→E7 energy conversion: from local consensus (E1) to global institutionalization (E7), with each leap requiring barrier-crossing and external potential energy borrowing.

Key conversion nodes: COP16 (2010, E3→E5), Paris Agreement (2015, E5), Silesia Declaration (2018, E6), Global Finance Integration (2020s, E7).

This trajectory exemplifies potential energy storage, cross-domain conversion, and institutional solidification.

Appendix D: Integration with Terawatt Times Institute Practice

Publication & Licensing

Title: Influence Energetics: A Paradigm Shift from Communication to Thermodynamic Work
Version: 1.0 | October 23, 2025
Author: Alex Yang Liu
Publisher: Terawatt Times Institute
Document ID: IE-2025-v1.0
Citation Format: Liu, A. Y. (2025). Influence Energetics: A Paradigm Shift from Communication to Thermodynamic Work. Terawatt Times, v1.0. DOI: [To be assigned]

Copyright & Use

© 2025 Alex Yang Liu. All rights reserved.
You are free to:
▷ Read, cite, and reference this work
▷ Use it for research and education
▷ Share it with attribution
Engineering implementation and commercial use require licensing.
This includes: software/hardware implementation, integration into products or services, development of technical standards, and professional applications.
Contact: alex.liu@terawatttimes.org Terawatt Times Institute