Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

29. You can't ascribe life's pursuit of growth to energy efficiency.

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #28)

Tue May 8, 2012, 02:14 PM

May 2012

That is as misguided as saying that life causes disease.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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:

(TED Talk) Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy [View all] OKIsItJustMe May 2012 OP

I'm not sure human civilization has 50 years left. NickB79 May 2012 #1

Well, we don't necessarily need to change everything overnight OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #2

We >needed< to start making changes rather quickly GliderGuider May 2012 #3

So, it's pointless to do it now? OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #5

Of course we should start now. GliderGuider May 2012 #6

It's too late to stop at the end of WWII OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #9

Nobody says "It's too late to do anything now." GliderGuider May 2012 #12

It's like hitting the brakes before an unavoidable car accident NickB79 May 2012 #40

What science do you base that on? kristopher May 2012 #42

The Arctic ice cap is on track to disintegrate by 2020 NickB79 May 2012 #49

In other words you are going strictly by your own evaluation of the evidence kristopher May 2012 #55

I'm going by respected scientists such as James Hansen NickB79 May 2012 #62

A reminder of your statement that I asked you to clarify kristopher May 2012 #63

Do you actually read any articles here? XemaSab Jul 2012 #68

The article doesn't support his conclusion. kristopher Jul 2012 #69

Thanks for the link madokie May 2012 #4

I'm glad you enjoyed it! OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #10

Yes it is madokie May 2012 #11

Notice how studiously Lovins ignores the insights of Stanley Jevons? GliderGuider May 2012 #7

Why do you assume that "Jevons Paradox" is immutable natural law? OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #8

Because it seems to be. GliderGuider May 2012 #13

Or it could be that your understanding of the entire subject is subpar. kristopher May 2012 #14

Could be. GliderGuider May 2012 #15

“Lovins has his sycophants…” OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #17

Every communication is semantically loaded - at least this one was obvious. GliderGuider May 2012 #18

See post 16 by OK. nt kristopher May 2012 #19

Asked and answered. Not enough, sorry. nt GliderGuider May 2012 #21

I wouldn't argue with the Jevons Paradox Nederland Jul 2012 #71

Well, let's not pretend that Lovins ignores Jevons OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #16

So long as he continues to deny the fundamental reality of the situation GliderGuider May 2012 #20

You are simply ignoring the evidence GG. kristopher May 2012 #22

What evidence? GliderGuider May 2012 #24

See #23 below OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #25

Efficiency lives — the rebound effect, not so much OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #23

Again, the blog post draws the system boundaries nice and tight. GliderGuider May 2012 #26

Or, perhaps, you dismiss evidence out-of-hand which does not confirm your beliefs OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #27

More on the rebound effect: counterexamples OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #28

You can't ascribe life's pursuit of growth to energy efficiency. kristopher May 2012 #29

Not the pursuit of growth, perhaps. GliderGuider May 2012 #31

You are simply engaging in wholesale redefinition of concepts. kristopher May 2012 #32

What on earth are you on about? GliderGuider May 2012 #33

Your "rebuttal" of Lovins etal leaves the realm of energy efficiency and rebound ... kristopher May 2012 #44

When you can't keep up you can always try a smear, eh? GliderGuider May 2012 #46

There is no problem with "keeping up" kristopher May 2012 #47

Mmm. Which is why you're doing such a bang-up job of refuting it. GliderGuider May 2012 #48

OK has already posted a complete rebuttal. kristopher May 2012 #50

You know, you are right about one thing. GliderGuider May 2012 #52

Spoken like a true lover of big energy. kristopher May 2012 #56

How about you write an OP XemaSab May 2012 #45

It's all in where you draw the system boundaries. GliderGuider May 2012 #30

That doesn’t follow—(i.e. It's all in where you draw the system boundaries.) OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #34

Let's follow your example through GliderGuider May 2012 #35

The question is, do “whole lot of little bits add up to” more than the initial savings? OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #37

I'm not trying to prove that. GliderGuider May 2012 #38

Grist: Does the rebound effect matter for policy? OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #54

I guess my difficulty is that I don't see further economic productivity as "good". GliderGuider May 2012 #57

I don’t view continued economic growth as a priority here OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #60

I tend to think of recycling as irrelevant. GliderGuider May 2012 #61

Energy Efficiency is for Real, Energy Rebound a Distraction OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #36

Don't mistake my position as being against energy efficiency. GliderGuider May 2012 #39

That’s difficult… OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #41

Having fuel efficient cars in Europe has done nothing to decrease global oil use GliderGuider May 2012 #43

Is that anything more than a hunch? OKIsItJustMe May 2012 #51

I call it a logical deduction. You may call it a hunch if it makes you feel better. GliderGuider May 2012 #53

We don't have to lower the TOTAL amount of energy. Odin2005 May 2012 #58

I thuink Lovins is a Libertarian dick at times, but I agree with him here. Odin2005 May 2012 #59

Kick... NYC_SKP Jul 2012 #64

Lovins is a professional greenwasher. hunter Jul 2012 #65

Lovins is anything but a "greenwasher" kristopher Jul 2012 #66

Hypocrite. Nihil Jul 2012 #72

Our primary nuclear pusher is indignant yet again? kristopher Jul 2012 #73

I don't know - have you asked him? Nihil Jul 2012 #74

Have we started yet? joshcryer Jul 2012 #67

Yes we have made a much better than expected start. kristopher Jul 2012 #70

kick and rec kristopher Jul 2012 #75