Environment & Energy

OKIsItJustMe

(21,734 posts)

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

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #30)

Tue May 8, 2012, 03:30 PM

May 2012

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…

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