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

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

8. I'm not talking about a minor rebound effect

Reply to kristopher (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 9, 2013, 05:14 PM

Jul 2013

I'm talking about the growth of the global economy, ad driven in part by increased energy supplies, and in part by increased energy efficiency.

It was really a peripheral point about the validity of the perception that efficiency helps reduce CO2 emissions. It may look look it does, but only if you draw the system boundaries in unrealistically close.

That cavil aside, there's no question that Hansen is wrong about the value of nuclear power - even more wrong, in fact than the boosters on here and at places like RMI are about renewables..

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hansen misguided about value of nuclear [View all] kristopher Jul 2013 OP

Nuclear enthusiasts always ignore the "fallout" Demeter Jul 2013 #1

Do energy efficiency initiatives really displace GHG emissions? GliderGuider Jul 2013 #2

Do we have efficiency initiatives on a global level? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #3

Efficiency initiatives are both local and global GliderGuider Jul 2013 #4

That has nothing to do with the OP kristopher Jul 2013 #5

I'm not talking about a minor rebound effect GliderGuider Jul 2013 #8

What evidence do you have that a lack of energy has curtailed development? kristopher Jul 2013 #12

??? I never said a lack of energy has curtailed development. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #14

that's what I thought kristopher Jul 2013 #15

Mmmm. Gee thanx. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #16

Silly GliderGuider ..... oldhippie Jul 2013 #17

Not the first time I've been criticized for colouring outside the lines. GliderGuider Jul 2013 #18

Whatever - I thought i was suggesting the most basic rule of authorship... kristopher Jul 2013 #19

Unsolicited personal advice from a stranger on the internet GliderGuider Jul 2013 #22

Hardly a stranger. kristopher Jul 2013 #24

What's your name? GliderGuider Jul 2013 #27

Grow up. kristopher Jul 2013 #28

So I don't get to know your name? GliderGuider Jul 2013 #29

Nor his qualifications ...... oldhippie Jul 2013 #35

OK, so is it your contention that Botswana would be better off if US emissions were going up!? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #6

My contention is that the USA has outsourced its manufacuring GliderGuider Jul 2013 #7

I don�t believe that is a sufficient explanation OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #9

It's also worth considering why emissions went down in that graph caraher Jul 2013 #11

What does the EIA have to say? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2013 #23

Yes, that is the problem with most accounting schemes for greenhouse gases caraher Jul 2013 #10

That really isn't relevant to the OP. kristopher Jul 2013 #13

Earlier post where we discuss "energy efficiency." joshcryer Jul 2013 #21

They don't dispute the 64 gt saved by nuclear power. joshcryer Jul 2013 #20

They are dealing specifically with what he signed his name to in that paper. kristopher Jul 2013 #25

No, they are deflecting. joshcryer Jul 2013 #30

Then Hansen doesn't agree with Hansen. kristopher Jul 2013 #31

They did not say his methods were wrong. joshcryer Jul 2013 #32

I think I'm corresponding with... kristopher Jul 2013 #33

Oops, I forgot, you're the guy who bought Nordell's nonsense. joshcryer Jul 2013 #34

Until a WovenGems Jul 2013 #26