Environment & Energy
Related: About this forum(TED Talk) Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy
http://www.ted.com/talks/amory_lovins_a_50_year_plan_for_energy.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NickB79
(19,236 posts)Similarly, at the rate I'm saving money, I technically have a 250-year plan to retire 
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)However we do need to start making changes rather quickly.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Mon May 7, 2012, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)
50 years ago.
Oops.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The time to have started was more like 30 years ago, and we did start, but our follow-through was poor.
Oh well! Better late than never!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)So long as we're clear that we can't "fix it" by starting this late.
CO2 levels have been rising for a lot more than 30 years. Given the hysteresis in that system and the inertia in the human/political one, the time for the entire planet to have started to stop using fossil fuels was 1960, or maybe even at the end of WWII.
But hey, we only do what we can...
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)(Unless that time machine research pays off.)
So, we do what we can do now (which is a lot.) Sadly there are forces which slow us in our efforts, including those who say, "It’s too late to do anything now.”
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Some of us do say things like this:
"Have realistic expectations about what can be done now. Keep the true scale of the problem in mind when selling yourself and others on "solutions". Don't over-sell the possibilities. Keep in mind that an incomplete understanding of the system context of the problem will increase the chances of unforeseen negative consequences flowing from the solution. With all that in mind, work as hard and as realistically as possible toward improving the outcome."
NickB79
(19,236 posts)You know you're probably going to total out your car, but you still hit the brakes as hard as you can hoping that you can walk away from it, or at the very least survive.
So hit the brakes, humanity, but don't be under any delusions that you'll be driving this wreck of a civilization afterwards.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)As far as I know everything we know says that we have to be on a track to accomplish certain benchmarks by 2020, 2030 and 2050. The technologies to move us from carbon are actually deploying at a pace that exceeds the expectations of what would be needed to get us to those benchmarks. No, we didn't stop using carbon yesterday. But we are building a supply chain and manufacturing base for renewable energy technologies that is approaching a critical mass where it will, in the not to distant future, have the economic (and the consequent political) inertia to promote its own welfare in a way that would be analogous to the electronic giants of the last 3 decades.
So I'd really love to see the science that says if by 2030 we have reduced carbon emissions by 40% and then meet an 80% reduction target by 2050 we are "too late" and that civilization will be "wrecked".
I can appreciate the anxiety but too much focus on the deniers is as bad as not taking them serious at all.
NickB79
(19,236 posts)Positive feedback on a massive scale then sets in, with the permafrost thawing and gigatons of methane being released. In fact, we're already seeing large methane releases today, with only a 1C temp increase in the past century: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.
The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.
After which, temp. increases of 3-5C by 2100 are pretty much locked in. And if you can seriously tell me that a 3-5C temperature increase in the next century isn't a serious threat to human civilization, we have nothing left to discuss: http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6041&method=full
A rise of 2C-3C will mean less fresh water available in parts of west Africa, central America, southern Europe and the eastern US, raising the probability of drought in these areas. In contrast, the tropical parts of Africa and South America will be at greater risk of flooding as trees are lost. Dr. Scholze says a global temperature rise of more than 3C will mean even less fresh water. Loss of forest in Amazonia and Europe, Asia, Canada and central America could reach 60%.
A 3C warming could also present a yet more dangerous scenario where the temperatures induce plants to become net producers of carbon dioxide. "As temperatures go up, plants like it better and they start to grow more vigorously and start to take up more carbon dioxide from the air," Dr. O'Neill said. "But there comes a point where the take-up is saturated for a given vegetation cover, then the ecosystem starts to respire more than it's taking up."
Dr. Scholze's work shows that this so-called "tipping point" could arrive by the middle of this century. His scenarios echo research from the UK's Hadley Centre, a world leader in climate change modelling. In a report published last year called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, scientists at the centre predicted that a 3C rise in average temperatures would cause a worldwide drop in cereal crops of between 20m and 400m tonnes, put 400 million more people at risk of hunger, and put up to 3 billion people at risk of flooding and without access to fresh water supplies.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)
...and disregarding the opinions of the IPCC etal.
I won't say you are wrong, but the presence of feedback isn't something that all of the climate researchers have overlooked. You'll note that even your reference uses the middle of the century as a reference point. If we were not on track in for building a new global energy system (yes it is still an infant) I would be more inclined to agree with you. But they economics of renewable energy are steadily surpassing expectations and not by just a little bit. For a decade I've been looking to China and India as the place where renewables are going to be birthed fully developed, and what I've seen in the past 5 years makes that belief even stronger.
I sincerely hope I'm right and that you are wrong, but I will admit to sharing some of your anxiety.
Perhaps you'd like me to kick it up a notch for you?
Hug The Monster’: Why So Many Climate Scientists Have Stopped Downplaying the Climate Threat
By Joe Romm on May 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478984/hug-the-monster-why-so-many-climate-scientists-have-stopped-downplaying-the-climate-threat/
There are some very good article on TP today, btw. You might want to check it out if you haven't:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/
NickB79
(19,236 posts)If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.
And by all the new research that finds fracked gas is as bad for climate change as burning coal: http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-from-fracking-emissions-can-double-those-from-coal.html
This wasn't taken into consideration by the IPCC because it was only discovered in the past year, after the IPCC concluded their latest climate panel. And fracked natural gas appears to be the next big thing energy-wise, with the US setting up to become a net energy exporter of our dirty gas within the next decade.
I understand, you really don't want to hear these things. And I agree with you: I really hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I just can't see how this is going to end well for the human race or the planet when all the trends are pointing in the wrong direction. The one thing that would really, truly change my mind that we might be OK would be to see the atmospheric CO2 trend flatline and then start to decline. But so far, we're almost to 400ppm CO2 with no end in sight at this point.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You know you're probably going to total out your car, but you still hit the brakes as hard as you can hoping that you can walk away from it, or at the very least survive.
So hit the brakes, humanity, but don't be under any delusions that you'll be driving this wreck of a civilization afterwards.
That simply isn't able to be supported with the literature. If we take action we can, as far as we know, beat this beast. I just really don't think that spreading unfounded resignation, despair and hopelessness is particularly helpful; that simply isn't the same as highlighting the urgency of action.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)You know, other than the articles you post. 
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your personal attacks are getting old.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I've been waiting all day to watch this talk. Lovins does have a good grasp of where we are and where we need to be. In working with large corporations these last 30 plus years to lessen their carbon footprint he has done more to help us than any one person in history. I could listen to him talk all day and well into the night if I had the chance.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)It’s nice to have a reasoned presentation, isn’t it?
madokie
(51,076 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 07:41 AM - Edit history (1)
...or Khazzoom-Brookes, if you're allergic to name of Jevons.
Every time I listen to Amory, I'm shocked that a man with such narrow horizons and such an apparently limited understanding of system dynamics could have become so respected. I guess it's true that the smoothest path to respect is telling people what they want to hear.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2011-01_ReplyToNewYorker
(It seems to me that you have studiously ignored Lovins response to Jevons.)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Especially when you look outside the boundaries of the energy system itself, out to the wider system in which the energy use is embedded.
To start within the energy system itself, energy use has never declined, no matter how efficient its use has become. There may be a number of reasons for that, chief among them that we're dealing with a global system made up of sovereign nations who get to chart their own energy/industrial courses independent of what "we" might choose to do.
More importantly though, lowering the effective cost of energy (which is what efficiency improvements do) has reverberations throughout the global economy. This is because money that would otherwise would be put into energy is now free to be applied in other areas of the economy. This expands the economy and increases human activity levels, with all of the deleterious effects that implies - effects that may appear far from the original source of the cost savings.
This is the point that Lovins doesn't get, as far as I can tell. He fails to see any danger signals inherent in "improved energy productivity".
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Since I've seen you make a huge number of errors of reasoning based on the desire to support preconceived positions such as peak oil, I'm voting for Lovins.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I've been known to shift my position when presented with good arguments. For example, you facilitated such a shift for me with your defense of Marvin Harris. I'd be very happy if someone could illuminate how my understanding on this particular issue, as described in my post above, is in error. Preferably without putting words in my mouth or committing other logical phallusies.
Lovins has his sycophants, I'm just not among them. Never have been, never will be.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)No semantic loading there…
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's my opinion from what I've seen, that Lovins has a very large coterie of utterly uncritical supporters, who leap to his defense at the slightest sign of criticism. Such people count as sycophants in my interpretation of the word.
My feelings about Lovins aside, I'm quite open to being shown how Khazzoom-Brookes does not apply on a global economic level, and if it does, suggestions about how such a situation might be realistically avoided over the next several decades.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Nederland
(9,976 posts)I would ask however, why you believe that increased energy use is always a bad thing. Why do you assume that the source of the additional energy will be environmentally detrimental?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Must he address Jevons at length each time he speaks?
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_Jevons_Paradox
Owen's counterfactual 2010 New Yorker article on energy "rebound" was demolished at the time by, among others, Dr. James Barrett of the Clean Economy Development Center, Dr. Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. David Goldstein of Natural Resources Defense Council, and myself . Cameron Burns and Michael Potts nicely summarized the key arguments here—the #1 Google hit for searches like "AmoryLovins+Jevons"—and RMI pursues the diverse "Jevons paradox" conversation at on our blog. A Times editor constructing a conversation on this theme could have easily found such references, leaving readers better-informed.
There is a very large professional literature on energy rebound, refreshed about every decade as someone rediscovers and popularizes this old canard. That literature supports neither Owen's view nor Prof. Matthew Kotchen's partial support that "rebound effects are potentially important." Real, yes; important, no. The price-elasticity and responding effects Owen cites, where measurable, are consistently minor—a theoretical nicety of little practical consequence.
James Watt's more-efficient steam engine did spark an industrial revolution that (as Stanley Jevons observed) created great wealth and burned more coal. But this is no proof that energy efficiency generally triggers economic growth that devours its savings (or more)—a "backfire" effect never yet observed. Rather, it shows that many disruptive technologies stimulate economic growth and wealth, sometimes sharply. Some disruptive technologies, like microchips and the Internet, incidentally save net energy even though they are not meant to be energy technologies; some disruptive energy technologies, like automobiles and jet airplanes, increase energy use, while others, like electric motors, probably decrease it, and still others, like electric lights, could do either depending on technology and metrics (which Owen's cited lighting analysis muddles); still other disruptive technologies that Owen doesn't criticize, like key advances in public health, mass education, and innovation, enormously increase wealth and have complex and indeterminate energy effects. Blaming wealth effects on energy efficiency has no basis in fact or logic.
To be sure, energy efficiency does modestly increase wealth, just as Owen's more efficient desk-lamp makes him slightly richer. I doubt this saving makes him use the lamp at least four times more (as would be needed to offset its energy savings), or that if it did, sitting longer at his desk would not displace other substantial energy-using activities. More likely his total energy use rose simply because he got richer: his writings and lectures have sold well to people who like his message, so he now has more stuff, uses it more, travels more, and probably doesn't reinvest much of his increased wealth in buying still more energy efficiency, which he thinks would frustrate his stated goal of environmental improvement.
…
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)He will continue to be faced with inconvenient skeptics and their recurrent questions.
Speaking of semantic loading, I note with amusement the following in the above excerpt:
"this old canard"
"a theoretical nicety of little practical consequence"
"Blaming wealth effects on energy efficiency has no basis in fact or logic."
The article you cite at http://blog.rmi.org/blog_Jevons_Paradox was in fact what prompted me to say that Lovins doesn't have clue one about rebound.
Lovins' position is to be expected, of course. If he were to admit any credence to it, either "in fact or logic", it would undermine his whole raison d'etre.
As Mark Twain said, "You tell me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll tell you what his opinions are." Lovins gets his corn pone from energy efficiency. 'Nuff said.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It is the same willful blindness that leads you to twist the meaning of a wide range of established, measurable concepts in your desire to cling to your doom oriented views of "peak oil".
Words have meanings that can't be arbitrarily changed to suite your whims. You want divert attention from what the theory claims and the evidence that conclusively disproves it in favor of waving your hands at ill-defiined claims that if we would just look outside of some cosmic system boundary we would see how all that evidence is wrong.
It is really lame, dude.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I haven't seen any yet. I've seen some assertions by Lovins that nobody "gets it" but him and his supporters. I've seen some assertions (all the commentary in OK's post was blogger opinions, BTW) that if the right systems are chosen and the system boundaries are arranged just so, then rebound effects within the system can be shown to be small. From there, it's an exercise akin to curve-fitting to draw the conclusion that rebound is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
I've seen a fair bit of evidence that rebound is real. Hell, even one of the Lovins sycophant blogs admits that. Simple logic tells me that something is driving the growth of civilization, and that something is energy. If both human activity and energy consumption increase even in the presence of increasing energy efficiency (which is demonstrated), it's a very small logical step to the position that rebound is playing some role in it - if not within the boundaries of some particular energy system, then within the wider "system" of global human activity.
I'm not saying that all the energy savings stemming from efficiency will be lost to other human activity, but I'm not convinced that there is any ultimate net benefit to human civilization or the biosphere at large from energy efficiency. To me the fact that we're continually using more and more energy (except when the economy goes into decline) - and destroying more and more of the planet in the process - supports my position. If anyone can present non-blog evidence that the rebound effect is not hurting the planet, I'm all ears. But as I said, I haven't seen any yet.
I get that you disagree with my position. But you're not presenting evidence, you're presenting ad homs.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The rebound effect of more efficient lighting doesn't show up within the lighting system, so it is dismissed.
What I suspect is happening is that the rebounds are being diffused out into the wider economy where their effects can't be identified. That's one of the problems with using an abstraction mechanism like money. When you spend a dollar on something like a vacation on a despoiled tropical island, you can't tell whether that dollar came from destroying natural habitat for profit or from energy efficient home lighting.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)https://blog.pnnl.gov/StructuredThinking/index.php/2011/03/rebound-counterexamples/
https://blog.pnnl.gov/StructuredThinking/index.php/2011/04/outward-bound-effect/
Please, let’s not claim there is “no evidence” to question the Jevons Paradox. That’s similar to a skeptic claiming there is “no evidence” to support the notion of climate change.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is as misguided as saying that life causes disease.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But maybe the achievement of growth depends on it just a little bit.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You can talk till you are blue in the face but an apple isn't a rock.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)PLF, DHAC...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...and enters the area of the flow of energy through cultures. It is as if the discussion were about ripples from a stone and you were trying to define it in terms of how the tides move.
Getting a bit testy are you? TFB.
In an interesting sidenote the idea that energy efficiency is useless is one that is dear to the hearts of those who embrace the technologies of our current centralized thermal system that is built on an economic model that drives expanded use of energy. Of course, that couldn't possibly be what motivates you, but I do think it is one of the primary drivers for those that promote what is, after all, a theory that has been unequivocally shown to be irrelevant.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)PLF, DHAC.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The problem lies in your desire to rewrite basic ideas because the facts don't support the belief structure you wish to foster. We saw you do the same thing with Peak Oil. Ascribing the energy use of a factory in Taiwan to the flutter of a butterlfly's wings might be an interesting discussion while you're stoned, but in the real world it sound like what it is - nonsense.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Instead of just scurrying around nipping at my ankles and yipping, why not post something of actual substance?
PLF, DHAC.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The evidence he posted is irrefutable when one adheres to the parameters of what is meant by energy efficiency and rebound. I'm pointing out how the argument you are making is a structurally flawed attempt to rewrite what those concepts mean in order to avoid admitting you are wrong. Boundaries can be a significant issue in any analysis but the way you are moving the boundaries so far that you are leaving the energy efficiency and rebound concepts behind and talking about something else entirely.
What you are really saying is that sustainability isn't possible.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I really am saying that sustainability isn't possible.
But at least unsustainability looks much greener when seen under high-efficiency LED lighting.
And if the concept of rebound isn't amenable to logical analysis if the boundaries are pushed out, then it may be a useless concept in today's interwoven, boundary-free world.
And Amory Lovins is still an intellectually dishonest corn pone chasing corporatist.
There, was that so hard?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Whether you are or not such a fatalistic attitude coupled with such animosity towards Lovins certainly reads that way.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)with YOUR definitions for all the words that you regularly argue about the meanings of?
We'll stick it to the top of the forum and go from there, ok?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)
http://blog.pnnl.gov/StructuredThinking/index.php/2011/01/rebound-confusion/This blogpost basically takes issue with Owen's NYT article and the way Owen presented his argument. The blogpost generally supports the idea of rebound:
1) A substitution effect – when a device’s energy efficiency is improved, the reduced cost of operating that device, relative to other goods or services, leads to increased use of that device.
2) An income effect – energy cost savings provided by an efficient device allow both increased use of the device, as well as additional purchases of other goods or services which consume energy, possibly directly, but certainly indirectly, via their production or delivery.
Both of these effects work to at least partially offset of the energy savings associated with energy efficiency efforts. Quantifying the combined effects is necessary to determine the degree of the rebound effect.
http://blog.pnnl.gov/StructuredThinking/index.php/2011/03/rebound-counterexamples/
This is a continuation of the critique of Owen by the same author, but with anecdotal evidence.
http://blog.pnnl.gov/StructuredThinking/index.php/2011/04/outward-bound-effect/
This one is interesting, in that he recognized that there will be other drivers to behaviour beyond the single rebound one is considering.
Where I think this author fails to close the loop is in not asking the question, "What part do rebound effects have in driving wealth changes?"
I will say this. In Amory's particular corn pone hunt (selling energy efficiency to corporations), he can legitimately act as though rebound effects are unimportant. Energy efficiency may indeed simply improve a corporation's bottom line by increasing its profit margin without increasing its sales volume. For me however, the interesting question is, "What happens then?" Typically, the increased profit is passed on to shareholders through dividends. It usually ends up as increased consumption. And that increased consumption (the "wealth" of the last link) is IMO driven to a great extent by the aggregated rebound effects from energy efficiency in many areas of society. This is what we are talking about when we measure the energy intensity of GDP for example.
Amory can legitimately ignore the wider consequences of rebound, because they happen outside his sphere of interest. As Tom Lehrer said in his old satirical song, "'Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department,' says Werner Von Braun."
I, however, have this peculiar character flaw that won't let me ignore the big picture. Where the "rockets" of the global economy land is very important to me, especially when they land on unprotesting non-human members of the biosphere. The higher and more efficiently we shoot them, the harder they fall. And when I hear Amory trying to use his constricted "sphere of interest" to dismiss the larger consequences of what he promotes - to the point where he won't even discuss the issue honestly - I have to demur.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The principle here is that savings in one place will automatically be more than offset.
We’ve established that:
- increased lighting efficiency does not inevitably lead to disproportionately more lighting
- increased automobile efficiency does not inevitably lead to disproportionately more driving
Your argument is that increased efficiency however must inevitably lead to a disproportionate amount of consumption, somewhere in the system, if the system view is just wide enough. What if, because I save money by switching all of my lights to LED, I decide I can afford to increase my donations to DU?
Where is the increase in consumption?
I know, I know, that means that our hosts can afford to buy new servers, which will be more energy efficient than their current servers…
No, they will be able to afford to pay more for a hosting service, so they’ll go with a solar-powered data center… No…
I just know that there cannot possibly be a net energy savings by me installing more efficient lights in my home. Because, if that were true…
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)- You switch all your lights to LEDs, and save a few bucks.
- You decide not to buy more lighting (that would be rebound, don't wanna do that), so you donate it to DU.
- DU takes your new donation and uses it to pay for part of a server expansion.
- The new server purchase is part of the business plan at a server company in South Korea.
- The server company uses the money from that server purchase to pay part of their workers' wages.
- The workers take their wages and buy gas for their cars and food for their tables.
- They burn the gas and eat the food
It's diffused out, and abstracted through the use of money, but you can't deny that your efficiency let someone else, somewhere else, consume a little bit more. And a whole lot of little bits add up to a whole lot.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)You haven't come close to proving that, and I haven't seen any convincing evidence from anyone else that they do either.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)My objection is more to growth and all the things that fuel it, including energy efficiency. I'm especially objecting to the mistaken assumption that increasing efficiency will somehow reduce growth. It won't. Oh, and to Amory's intellectually dishonest embrace of that mistaken assumption in his dismissal of rebound effects.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)By David Roberts
[font size=3]In my last post, I offered a brief introduction to the “rebound effect,” by which energy demand, after dropping in response to energy efficiency gains, “rebounds” back upward as the money/energy savings are spent elsewhere. The academic literature shows that rebound effects are real and in some cases substantial, but highly context-dependent and devilishly hard to measure. Go read that post for background.
The question for today’s post is: So what? What are the policy implications?
Discussion of rebound effects is often taken to be “anti-efficiency,” so the most important conclusion to emphasize is: The existence of rebound effects does not harm the case for energy efficiency. In any way. At all. Even a little.
Again: There is no argument for energy efficiency that is rendered moot or false by the existence of rebound effects. The rebound effect is an interesting side effect of energy efficiency but is in no case an argument against pursuing it. Efficiency is good for economic productivity; it is progressive, in that it helps the poorest (who spend the highest percentage of their income on energy) the most; it is labor-intensive, so it creates jobs; and it reduces conventional pollutants. No matter what the rebound literature ends up concluding, it remains true that we radically underinvest in energy efficiency relative to what is environmentally or economically optimal.
…[/font][/font]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That puts me in a distinct minority when it comes to discussing issues like this.
As kristopher so pointedly observed, I really am saying that sustainability isn't possible.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I view continued survival as a priority.
Your bias against “growth” may lead you to irrationally reject a Good Thing™. (i.e. conservation efforts.)
Following your line of thought, recycling would be bad…
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I also don't see continued survival - on the personal, civilizational or species level - as possible.
What I prefer to do are those things that I think add positive value to the world (but positive value on my own terms, not the "shoulds" of others). So while I see recycling as pretty much irrelevant on its own merits I do it because it does a number of positive things, not least of which is keeping me in the good graces of my neighbours. I also conserve because it gives me more money to use for other things, not because I think it's going to make our situation more survivable.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Written by: Shakeb Afsah and Kendyl Salcito and Chris Wielga* • Jan 11, 2012
[font size=4]Summary[/font][font size=3]
Energy efficiency is an over-rated policy tool when it comes to cutting energy use and CO2 emissions—that’s the basic message promoted by the US think tank the Breakthrough Institute (BTI), and amplified in major news outlets like the New Yorker and the New York Times. Their logic is that every action to conserve energy through efficient use leads to an opposite reaction to consume more energy—a “rebound” mechanism, which, according to the BTI, can negate as much as 60-100% of saved energy, and in some cases can backfire to increase net energy consumption.
In this research note we refute this policy message and show that the BTI, as well as its champions in the media, have overplayed their hand, supporting their case with anecdotes and analysis that don’t measure up against theory and data. Our fact-checking revealed that empirical estimates of energy rebound cited by the BTI are over-estimated or wrong, and they contradict the technological reality of energy efficiency gains observed in many industrial sectors.
We provide new statistical evidence to show that energy efficiency policies and programs can reliably cut energy use—a finding that is consistent with the policy stance of leading experts and organizations like the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) and the World Bank. Additionally, we take our policy message one step further—by using new insights from the emerging multi-disciplinary literature on “energy efficiency gap”, we recommend that the world needs more energy efficiency policies and programs to cut greenhouse gases—not less as implied by the BTI and its cohorts in the media.
Corresponding author: Kendyl.Salcito@CO2Scorecard.org
…
…[/font][/font]
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Efficiency, conservation and doing less are all on my personal agenda. I remain to be convinced however that having more fuel efficient cars in Europe will drive down (has driven down?) global oil consumption.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)“My objection is more to growth and all the things that fuel it, including energy efficiency…”
Do you believe that having more energy efficient cars in Europe has led to increased oil usage world-wide?
Or do you believe that world-wide oil consumption may be driven by something other than more energy efficient cars in Europe?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)and may have increased it - after all, energy efficient cars in Europe have freed a lot of barrels of oil to fuel cars in China, which is part of China's economic growth, and may have therefore contributed to an increase in global oil consumption.
If Europe had not developed energy efficient cars there would be no less oil being consumed today, but there might be less overall global economic growth.
I'd rather tackle degrowth through other mechanisms than by reducing energy efficiency though, if that's the box you're trying to trap me in. Other mechanisms like global economic collapse are far more effective, and work with or without energy efficiency.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Seriously… do you have any sort of study that shows that increased efficiency in Europe led to increased demand for automobiles in China?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm not in the study business, sorry. Ask kristopher if you need a study done.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)We just have to lower the energy that comes from carbon-based fuels until it approaches 0, So Jevon's Paradox is completely irrelevant.
And in a few decades we will start mining asteroids, so we don't have to worry about running out of other resources (except helium, but if we can get fusion power going we can helium from fusion). Of course it still pays to recycle as much as possible to keep it out of the Biosphere.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Great TED talk!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I have learned a lot from Amory since we first met at IPCC IV event in SF, and possibly more from L Hunter, who's a bit more fun to be with, IMVHO.
Both are very much about thinking outside the box and challenging the very conventions that will kill us but that we all too easily accept.
And proving that making the right choices actually pays off, and fairly quickly!
hunter
(38,311 posts)I can't listen to him.
We've met, decades ago...An ex-girlfriend of mine adored him and she went into a similar business, selling some of my work too. She's made a lot of money off military contracts. She and her family fly around even more than Lovins' does. At this point they certainly have a bigger carbon footprint than Lovins. I'm pretty sure they can burn more oil on a single vacation than my family does in a year.
My opinions are not unbiased. Oh hell, maybe I'm just wondering how things might have been had I followed another path. But I couldn't sell what I didn't believe in.
I do believe GliderGuider has it right. Improving the energy efficiency of institutions like the U.S. military or Wal-Mart does not make the world a better place. It goes beyond Jevon's paradox.
Rather than make the military more energy efficient, I think we could simply eliminate 95% of our military. We could make it impossible for exploitive employers like Wal-Mart to exist. Institutions that no longer exist don't use any energy. Simple. A ship or vehicle that's not replaced stops using fuel when it's melted down and turned into urban housing. A military base that's closed and restored as wilderness stops using energy.
Efficiencies of the sort Lovin's support only prolong the agonies of political and economic systems that are unsustainable and destructive.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)But that is certainly the claim that identifies the nuclear pushers - that group is the only source (period) of efforts to discredit Lovins. The fact that you join in to make the unfounded accusation dovetails perfectly with the history of posting in a way that consistently aids those overtly promoting nuclear.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)You are posting your usual slanderous smears on anyone who disagrees with your
opinion yet, just upthread, you responded to a question to you with the phrase:
>> "Your personal attacks are getting old."
That is, to be polite, "inconsistent" ...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Color me not surprised.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)You've been called on your lies enough times before now but it is
surprisingly easy to see when you feel you are losing an argument ...
out come the names and the smears ...
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)No? Oh OK.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Global manufacturing industry on the scale needed doesn't materialize out of thin air at the whim of whiners. It is built on hard work and commitment by hundreds of thousands of people over decades.
Press Release
12 January 2012
The EU achieved its 2010 renewable electricity target of 21% of electricity consumption according to latest analysis by the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).
(The EU's 2001 Renewable Electricity Directive set a target of 21% electricity from renewable sources for 2010).
In 2010 renewable energies produced between 665 Terrawatt hours (TWh) and 673 TWh, hitting the 21% target given consumption was around 3,115 TWh to 3,175 TWh.
If renewable electricity production in the EU continued to grow at the same rate as it did from 2005 to 2010 it would account for 36.4% of electricity in 2020 and 51.6% in 2030 (see table below).
"The renewable electricity targets set back in 2001 have been realistic as well as effective" said Justin Wilkes, EWEA's Director of Policy. "The targets have worked in achieving their purpose within the time foreseen. This success is why industry is calling for an ambitious 2030 target for renewables."
Wilkes added: "The growth achieved in the last five years has been outstanding and if continued would result in over half of the EU's electricity coming from renewables by 2030. A long-term stable framework, underpinned by an ambitious 2030 renewable energy target, is clearly the proven way to ensure Europe meets its climate, competitiveness and energy security goals."
"The growth of renewables between 2005 and 2010 was largely carried by onshore wind. In future the renewables sector will benefit from significant growth in offshore wind and other technologies as they become more mature."
EWEA analysis of provisional EUROSTAT data as well as EurObserv'ER and EURELECTRIC figures show that in 2010 renewables accounted for just over 21% electricity consumed in the EU. EUROSTAT will publish definitive 2010 figures in a few months time.
Share of renewable electricity to total electricity consumption (%)
2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2020 - 2030
13.6 -- 14.2 -- 15.1 -- 16.4 -- 18.2 -- 21.2 -- 36.4 -- 51.6
http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=60&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1928&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=259&cHash=5b6ef5175da4b4475793f542a20f3a80
