Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: (TED Talk) Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy [View all]GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)20. So long as he continues to deny the fundamental reality of the situation
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:
"Owen's counterfactual 2010 New Yorker article on energy "rebound" was demolished at the time"
"this old canard"
"a theoretical nicety of little practical consequence"
"Blaming wealth effects on energy efficiency has no basis in fact or logic."
"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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In other words you are going strictly by your own evaluation of the evidence
kristopher
May 2012
#55
Every communication is semantically loaded - at least this one was obvious.
GliderGuider
May 2012
#18
Or, perhaps, you dismiss evidence out-of-hand which does not confirm your beliefs
OKIsItJustMe
May 2012
#27
Your "rebuttal" of Lovins etal leaves the realm of energy efficiency and rebound ...
kristopher
May 2012
#44
That doesn’t follow—(i.e. It's all in where you draw the system boundaries.)
OKIsItJustMe
May 2012
#34
The question is, do “whole lot of little bits add up to” more than the initial savings?
OKIsItJustMe
May 2012
#37
I guess my difficulty is that I don't see further economic productivity as "good".
GliderGuider
May 2012
#57
Having fuel efficient cars in Europe has done nothing to decrease global oil use
GliderGuider
May 2012
#43
I call it a logical deduction. You may call it a hunch if it makes you feel better.
GliderGuider
May 2012
#53