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]OKIsItJustMe
(21,734 posts)54. Grist: Does the rebound effect matter for policy?
http://grist.org/energy-efficiency/does-the-rebound-effect-matter-for-policy/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Does the rebound effect matter for policy?[/font]
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 todays 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]
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 todays 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]
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
