(TED Talk) Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy

[GliderGuider]

30. It's all in where you draw the system boundaries.

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 03:31 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:

The rebound effect can be disaggregated into two components:

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.

To be clear, I’m certainly not denying the existence of the rebound effect. The substitution and income effects described in my previous post are very real, and without doubt offset some of the gains of energy efficiency. But it’s important not to misattribute price, preference, or wealth-driven increases in energy consumption to energy efficiency rebound. If anything, the evidence in the above two examples only suggests the continued need for greater energy efficiency.

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.

I just wanted to use my Clipart prowess to expand on Doug’s well-made point regarding the “rebound effect,” where he pointed out that when assessing the potential rebound effect of energy-efficiency, we need to recognize other key drivers of consumer behavior, such as wealth.

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.