Very quickly on this. The existence of some rebound effect is undisputed. But enough to lead to net increase in emissions greater than without efficiency improvmentss. Very doubtful. The exceptions were cases where improvements were so great they created paradigm shifts, and allowed whole classes of things to be done that could not be done before. Efficient heat engines let you drive trains and industrial equipment that simply could not be run before. Electric lighting is so superior to gas lighting you can do things like do drafting at night you could not do before. (Also electric light was the first time in history it was possible to read at night without ruining your eyes. Before electric lighting, it was simply taken for granted that clerks and scholars would ruin their eyes.)
LED lighting is not fundamentally different enough from incandescent or florescent to create a huge rebound effect. You have pointed out that building efficiency does cause net increases in consumption. The same is true of automobiles. (Note this does contradict that all autos are ecological disasters. It remains true that electric autos consume much less energy from a life cycle viewpoint than gasoline powered autos, including embedded energy which exists in both kinds of car, and road use which is the same for both (or a little less for electric because they are lighter). Natural capitalism: this is the view that capitalism can either solve ecological problems without government internentions, or with modest intervention such as carbon pricing, tax shifts, and mild regulation. Unmitigated capitalism cannot deal with ecological crisis. At the minimum, capitalism can only be compatible with the environment in face really radical fundamental reforms, that include really massive public investment on the scale of military budgets, really strong regulations. Pollution pricing can serve as useful reinforcement to these but not more. Some might argue that even radical reform is not enough in the long run, but I think it might save our asses over the next half century. On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:18 AM, <ehr...@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu> wrote: > ------- Start of forwarded message ------- > From: Howard Ehrman <hehr...@uic.edu> > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:45:55 -0600 > To: mattjosephleon...@gmail.com > Cc: No group <no-offs...@googlegroups.com>, > No Carbon Trade <nocarbontrad...@fern.org>, > nonewcoalpla...@energyjustice.net, CJN List <c...@lists.riseup.net>, > Durban Group Climate Justice <durbangr...@googlegroups.com> > Subject: [Nocarbontrade-l] Help me Understand? Energy efficiency alone leads > to higher emissions??? > > > Hello, > > So help me understand how Matt, Michael and others who > responded to the issue of Jevon's Paradox feel about it??: > > do you believe it is or could be real today, are not sure or > don't believe it is relevant 150 years after first stated? > > It would be helpful if people on these lists also would > clarify how they feel about "Natural Capitalism" the > ideological foundation of the Lovins, Hawkins and others who > state on their website: > > http://rmi.org/rmi/Natural++Capitalism > > "Natural capital" refers to the earth's natural resources > and the ecological systems that provide vital life-support > services to society and all living things. These services > are of immense economic value; some are literally priceless, > since they have no known substitutes. Yet current business > practices typically fail to take into account the value of > these assets -- which is rising with their scarcity. As a > result, natural capital is being degraded and liquidated by > the very wasteful use of resources such as energy, > materials, water, fiber, and topsoil. > > In Lovins response to the article in question he states: > > "In eleven of the past thirty-four years, U.S. energy use > fell;" > > Yet according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration > (see graphs below) total U.S. energy Consumption tripled > between 1950-2000 and increased almost every year until the > economic crisis of 2008 > > Lovins, Hawkins, and others believe in capitalism and that > by working with it to make it "more efficient" we can save > the earth > > This, like "Natural Capitalism", perhaps the greatest > oxymoron ever created in the english language, fails to take > into account, as John Foster Bellamy clearly explains in his > November, 2010 Monthly Review article on the Jevons Paradox, > that it is a law of capitalism that it will both foster, > facilitate and use efficiency gains to expand the scope, > breadth and depth of consumption at all costs to Mother > Earth and everything that inhabits her, in order to increase > profits, profit margins and ratios in particular. > > Lovins writes and talks about other non-truths, like it is > increasing "wealth", not the mass production of "efficient" > everything tied directly to the capitalist means of > extraction, production, transportation, consumption and > disposal that causes people to buy and use more "efficient" > products > > Whose wealth is he talking about? > > we all know that the last time the vast majority of > U.S. residents income increased in relation to overall cost > of living was at least 35 years ago, similar to what has > gone on in most of the world > > The only wealth that has been increasing is the > concentration of wealth, and all power, into the hands of > relatively fewer and fewer people and the trans-national > banks and corporations they control > > Of course everyone on these lists knows it is the massive > increased extraction of Mother's Earths resources and total > control of the globalized market via the world bank, WTO, > IMF, etc. that results in capitalism's production of "cheap, > disposable, "efficient" products: that are never really > efficient if you investigate the entire life cycle of any > product > > While it is true that the Jevons Paradox may not apply to > everything: > > for example as Lovins states replacing your old 60% > efficient heater with a 90%+ one will probably not be > overcome by the Jevons Paradox, in most macro cases the > Jevons Paradox is still very much in effect at the Macro > level because, last time I checked, capitalism was in > control of most of the world > > The fundamental question regarding energy that I have not > seen very much of on these lists (perhaps I missed it) is: > > energy conservation & the actual, absolute (not relative) > decrease in per capita energy use by most in the global > north & elites in the global south > > both of these critical areas are in complete contradiction > with capitalism and almost all forms of "development" > including "sustainable development" (another oxymoron in how > most use it) > > there is absolutely no way we can hope to keep fossil fuels > in the ground, stop everything else in & on top of the > ground from becoming fuel if we do not start from that > premise > > There is no way that absolute energy conservation can be put > into practice on a Macro scale within a capitalist system, > especially the global capitalist matrix we all live in > > Since Lovins is a smart guy and he supports capitalism, > along with all the big greens (who, like Lovins get lots of > $$$$ support from capitalism), perhaps that is why he does > not talk about conservation, especially in an absolute > sense, but instead supports efficiency as the solution, > which is fully compatible with capitalism of the 21st > century as it was in the 19th century > > There is no more important example of efficiency "will > solve everything" thinking & practice than Lovins, and > other Jevons' Deniers, love of Green Cars- > > those on these lists and throughout the green, > environmental, and CJ movement who support green cars or are > honestly, sincerely confused about them do not want to give > up the individualistic lifestyle "Geoengineered" by GM, > Firestone, Ford, etc. & the U.S. and other governments they > have controlled the last 65 years, that has destroyed the > earth since WWII. Led by individual motor vehicles and the > 69,000,000 Km of roads, billions of hectares of land > destroyed and the use of CO2 intensive cement and asphalt > those with cars have been "rewarded" w/ freedom! > > if you have not seen it please take the time to watch "Taken > for a Ride" on YouTube: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAc4w11Yzys > > the green car supporters refuse to accept the facts that the > entire "life cycle" of a car, even one that is entirely > solar powered, is still the single most "inefficient" item > anyone could own because of how much energy & GHG emissions > it takes to extract the materials to make the care, the > energy used to produce the car, the energy,materials and > space used to run the cars & park the cars, the energy to > make the cement, etc. all for a vehicle that uses 90% of > whatever form of energy it has to move the vehicle (based on > weight) not the people inside, especially since 90% of the > time people drive by themselves) > > then there are the facts on the ground of how green cars > right now are draining resources, money (including $millions > in public monies) from building local economies so people > would not have to go that far from where they live, making > more sidewalks for people to walk, building cycle tracks to > ride bikes safely in cities and funding public transit, > which has received $0 U.S. federal in operations funding > since 1997. > > right now there are thousands of charging stations for > people's private cars being built across the U.S. that we > are paying for as taxpayers and that pose a real risk and > danger to a poorly regulated and maintained electric grid, > especially during hot summer days > > A 2008 University of Minnesota study and others show that if > all cars in Amerika were plug-in hybrids, CO2 emissions > would increase 10% due to coal burning power plants being at > the other end of the plug 50% of the time > > Yes, some of what Lovins says in his letter responding to > the New Yorker article is correct: when he talks about > energy use in a house probably not getting overcome by a > rebound or Jevon's Paradox, which would mean people would > turn up the thermostat so much in the winter as to cancel > out the increases in efficiency or turn it down in the > summer. > > However, even here he is only half right or less. > > The vast majority of decreased energy use in a new or > retrofitted "weatherized" building is NOT primarily because > of efficiency, it is because of conservation > > When Lovins proudly proclaims to Amy Goodman and other > worldly admirers that he almost never has to artificially > heat his house on the mountain it is because it is > super-insulated which conserves energy (windows in almost > all cases are secondary to air sealing and insulation) and > things like passive solar energy > > Since most of us live in houses or work in buildings that > are not quite like Avery's what we need to do is to develop > a fair, just and equitable weatherization standard and mass > movement to weatherize every building in the US by > 2020. This could potentially decrease energy use & CO2 > emissions by 30% primarily through energy conservation, not > energy efficiency. i.e. even if you have to replace your > heater with a more "efficient" one. > > There is a lot more to talk about but, > > the bottom line is the Jevons Paradox is alive & will > continue to be so until capitalism is done away with > > if you have not yet had the opportunity to read the Bellamy > article from the November, 2010 MR here is a section > relevant to this discussion and a link to the entire > article: > > http://www.monthlyreview.org/101101foster-clark-york.php > > "The Fallacy of Dematerialization > The Jevons Paradox is the product of a capitalist economic > system that is unable to conserve on a macro scale, geared, > as it is, to maximizing the throughput of energy and > materials from resource tap to final waste sink. Energy > savings in such a system tend to be used as a means for > further development of the economic order, generating what > Alfred Lotka called the "maximum energy flux," rather than > minimum energy production.34 The deemphasis on absolute (as > opposed to relative) energy conservation is built into the > nature and logic of capitalism as a system unreservedly > devoted to the gods of production and profit. As Marx put > it: "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the > prophets!"35 > > > SYSTEM (like in the Capitalist System) CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE! > > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Matt Leonard wrote: > >> It seems that every few months, a journalist "discovers" >> Jevon's Paradox, and reports on it as if it is a >> breakthrough angle that takes the air (no pun intended) >> out of climate and efficiency advocates. >> >> And this isn't he first time the Breakthrough Institute >> has inserted themselves into the debate - with little to >> substantiate their positions. See a wonderful debunking >> from Climate Progress at: >> http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/15/the-breakthrough-institute-attack-energy-efficiency-clean-energy-backfire-rebound-effect/ >> > >> Also, Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute has done a >> great page with various viewpoints on the matter outlined >> at:http://www.rmi.org/rmi/jevonsparadox >> >> -Matt >> >> On 3/9/2011 6:24 AM, Jerome Whitington wrote: >>> >>> Global Climate Action May Cut 2050 Oil Prices to $69, EU Says >>> 2011-03-08 16:27:41.60 GMT >>> >>> >>> By Mathew Carr >>> March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Global climate action may cut the >>> price of oil by 2050 because of lower demand, according to >>> modeling carried out by the European Union. >>> Oil prices may fall to $69 a barrel because of worldwide >>> climate protection, compared with $138 a barrel under a baseline >>> scenario with limited greenhouse-gas reduction, the EU said >>> today in a plan to curb emissions through 2050. >>> "Taking action on climate change has significant >>> implications for the EU fossil fuel imports and the related >>> bill," according to the document. "The global-action scenario >>> results in 51 percent lower oil consumption than the baseline >>> level in 2050." >>> >>> March 7, 2011 >>> When Energy Efficiency Sullies the Environment >>> By JOHN TIERNEY, NY Times >>> For the sake of a cleaner planet, should Americans wear dirtier clothes? >>> >>> This is not a simple question, but then, nothing about >>> dirty laundry is simple anymore. We've come far since the >>> carefree days of 1996, when Consumer Reports tested some >>> midpriced top-loaders and reported that "any washing >>> machine will get clothes clean." >>> >>> In this year's report, no top-loading machine got top >>> marks for cleaning. The best performers were >>> front-loaders costing on average more than $1,000. Even >>> after adjusting for inflation, that's still $350 more >>> than the top-loaders of 1996. >>> >>> What happened to yesterday's top-loaders? To comply with >>> federal energy-efficiency requirements, manufacturers >>> made changes like reducing the quantity of hot water. The >>> result was a bunch of what Consumer Reports called >>> "washday wash-outs," which left some clothes "nearly as >>> stained after washing as they were when we put them in." >>> >>> Now, you might think that dirtier clothes are a small >>> price to pay to save the planet. Energy-efficiency >>> standards have been embraced by politicians of both >>> parties as one of the easiest ways to combat global >>> warming. Making appliances, cars, buildings and factories >>> more efficient is called the "low-hanging fruit" of >>> strategies to cut greenhouse emissions. >>> >>> But a growing number of economists say that the >>> environmental benefits of energy efficiency have been >>> oversold. Paradoxically, there could even be more >>> emissions as a result of some improvements in energy >>> efficiency, these economists say. >>> >>> The problem is known as the energy rebound effect. While >>> there's no doubt that fuel-efficient cars burn less >>> gasoline per mile, the lower cost at the pump tends to >>> encourage extra driving. There's also an indirect rebound >>> effect as drivers use the money they save on gasoline to >>> buy other things that produce greenhouse emissions, like >>> new electronic gadgets or vacation trips on fuel-burning >>> planes. >>> >>> Some of the biggest rebound effects occur when new >>> economic activity results from energy-efficient >>> technologies that reduce the cost of making products like >>> steel or generating electricity. In some cases, the >>> overall result can be what's called "backfire": more >>> energy use than would have occurred without the improved >>> efficiency. >>> >>> Another term for backfire is the Jevons Paradox, named >>> after a 19th-century British economist who observed that >>> while the steam engine extracted energy more efficiently >>> from coal, it also stimulated so much economic growth >>> that coal consumption increased. That paradox was mostly >>> ignored by modern environmentalists, who have argued that >>> rebound effects are much smaller today. >>> >>> But economists keep finding contrary evidence. When >>> Britain's UK Energy Research Center reviewed more than >>> 500 studies on the subject, it rejected the assumption >>> that rebound effects were small enough to be >>> disregarded. The author of the 2007 report, Steve >>> Sorrell, noted that these effects could, in some >>> circumstances, "potentially increase energy consumption >>> in the long term." >>> >>> A similar conclusion comes from a survey of the >>> literature published last month by the Breakthrough >>> Institute, an American research group that studies ways >>> to slow global warming. Its authors, Jesse Jenkins, Ted >>> Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, warn that "rebound >>> effects are real and significant," and could sometimes >>> erode all the expected reductions in emissions. >>> >>> "Efficiency advocates try to distract attention from the >>> rebound effect by saying that nobody will vacuum more >>> because their vacuum cleaner is more efficient," >>> Mr. Shellenberger said. "But this misses the picture at >>> the macro and global level, particularly when you >>> consider all the energy that is used in manufacturing >>> products and producing usable energy like electricity and >>> gasoline from coal and oil. When you increase the >>> efficiency of a steel plant in China, you'll likely see >>> more steel production and thus more energy consumption." >>> >>> Consider what's happened with lighting over the past >>> three centuries. As people have switched from candles to >>> oil-powered lamps to incandescent bulbs and beyond, the >>> amount of energy needed to produce a unit of light has >>> plummeted. Yet people have found so many new places to >>> light that today we spend the same proportion of our >>> income on light as our much poorer ancestors did in 1700, >>> according to an analysis published last year in The >>> Journal of Physics by researchers led by Jeff Tsao of >>> Sandia National Laboratories. >>> >>> "The implications of this research are important for >>> those who care about global warming," said Harry >>> Saunders, a co-author of the article. "Many have come to >>> believe that new, highly-efficient solid-state lighting >>> -- generally LED technology, like that used on the >>> displays of stereo consoles, microwaves and digital >>> clocks -- will result in reduced energy consumption. We >>> find the opposite is true." >>> >>> These new lights, though, produce lots of other benefits, >>> just as many other improvements in energy efficiency >>> contribute to overall welfare by lowering costs and >>> spurring economic growth. In the long run, that economic >>> growth may spur innovative new technologies for reducing >>> greenhouse emissions and lowering levels of carbon >>> dioxide. >>> >>> But if your immediate goal is to reduce greenhouse >>> emissions, then it seems risky to count on reaching it by >>> improving energy efficiency. To economists worried about >>> rebound effects, it makes more sense to look for new >>> carbon-free sources of energy, or to impose a direct >>> penalty for emissions, like a tax on energy generated >>> from fossil fuels. Whereas people respond to more >>> fuel-efficient cars by driving more and buying other >>> products, they respond to a gasoline tax simply by >>> driving less. >>> >>> A visible tax, of course, is not popular, which is one >>> reason that politicians prefer to stress energy >>> efficiency. The costs and other trade-offs of energy >>> efficiency are often conveniently hidden from view, and >>> the prospect of using less energy appeals to the thrifty >>> instincts of consumers as well as to the moral >>> sensibilities of environmentalists. >>> >>> But if the benefits of energy efficiency have been >>> oversold, then that's more reason to consider >>> alternatives like a carbon tax, and to look more >>> carefully at the hidden costs and trade-offs involved in >>> setting rigid standards for efficiency. Unlike a carbon >>> tax, which gives consumers and manufacturers an incentive >>> to look for smart ways to save energy, a mandated >>> standard of efficiency can reduce flexibility and force >>> people into choices they wouldn't ordinarily make -- >>> including ones with consequences more serious than dirty >>> clothes. >>> >>> Because of the smaller and consequently less safe cars >>> built to meet federal fuel-efficiency standards starting >>> in the 1980s, there were about 2,000 additional deaths on >>> the highway every year, according to the National >>> Research Council. And now the federal government is >>> imposing even more stringent standards, with little >>> objection except from a few critics like Sam Kazman of >>> the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a >>> free-market-oriented nonprofit research group. >>> >>> "Efficiency mandates have become feel-good mantras that >>> politicians invoke," Mr. Kazman said. "The results of >>> these mandates have ranged from costly fiascos, such as >>> once-dependable top-loading washers that no longer wash, >>> to higher fatalities in cars downsized by fuel-efficiency >>> rules. If the technologies were so good, they wouldn't >>> need to be imposed on us by law." >>> >>> No matter what laws are enacted, people are going to find >>> ways to use energy more efficiently -- that's the story >>> of civilization. But don't count on them using less >>> energy, no matter how dirty their clothes get. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jerome Whitington >>> Anthropology, UC Berkeley PhD 2008 >>> >>> Climate Justice Research Project >>> Dartmouth College >>> >>> +1 415 763 8605 >>> -- > > Howard Ehrman, MD, MPH > > Assistant Professor > University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) > > College of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine > > School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and > Occupational Health Sciences > > Contact Information: > > email: hehr...@uic.edu > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598 Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
