Hi Darryl, thanks. First, belated congratulations for the runner-up award for The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy:
>Personal news item: >My book, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy, won Runner-up in the >international Green Book Festival Awards non-fiction category, >beating out entries by David Suzuki and Ron and Lisa Beres. I'd hoped to update the review at JtF by now, but I'll do it soon, it's top of the list. >Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). > >http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 >(check >the comments by "quinn") Yes, fire him. I think that's worth posting in full: >http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 > >Bunk. The right-wing think tanks have won another round, by >bellyaching about pseudo-intellectual concepts like "the Jevons >effect" widely enough that it catches on even in articles like this >one. > >I mean, it's a clever idea, as long as you don't think about it too >long. At which point, it starts to sound absurd, even laughable. If >something gets cheaper, I'm going to spend ALL my savings on getting >more of that thing?? SOME, yes. But it just gets on its face absurd >- as well as becoming entirely free from that nasty "evidence" thing >- when it's pushed to claim I'm gonna claw back most or all of the >savings. > > by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:05 pm reply > >As for the rest of the article, it's impressive just how full of >shit it is. It reads like an academic's plea to "fire me." > >1st off, Sweden has apparently seen rising transportation emissions, >even after all its good car stuff. Well, except that the latest >figures I've seen show no such thing. Here's the latest - December >2010 - annual report by Sweden to the UN under Kyoto. Which, near as >I can read it, (WArning, 2 MB PDF file) shows (page 61) that >passenger car emissions are down since 1990, while FREIGHT transport >is up. Which - sorry - does not show that passenger vehicles >becoming greener means people are flooding to the suburbs or >whatever. If they rose a couple of % from 2009 to 2010, sorry but >I'd suspect that's the recession and recovery, not some grand >Devonsian shift. > >Also, here's the announcement, entitled, "Record Reduction in >Swedish Emissions" from Dec/2010. You can read about the disastrous >situation that Sweden's intensive pursuit of greening has gotten >them into, in the following paragraph, "Swedish greenhouse gas >emissions are declining substantially. In 2009, emissions fell by >over 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, the largest >reduction in any single year to date* . This means that Sweden's >total emissions have now dropped by a total of around 17% since >1990, and levels have never been lower." > >You know, they only emit 5.6 tonnes per person now (abut a quarter >of the US and Canada.) And their total emissions are down 17% since >1990, even though the population has grown by 11%. Not bad. > > by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:24 pm reply > >I think I'll keep going on this one, as it really does deserve a >proper burial. Buddy says, "Based on Sweden's experience with green >cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. Who can >doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer commutes >to work and live even further out in the exurbs - bringing >development, blacktop and increased emissions with them?" > >Now, let's stop and think about this. > >1st, electric cars DO create technical pressures, but more likely to >live within their limitations. The biggest of which is... their >shorter range. Not longer, shorter. > >2nd electric cars will clean up the tailpipe emissions issue as well >as reduce a huge amount of urban noise. Which will make urban areas >MORE liveable, not less. etc. > > by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:24 pm reply > >After mangling the Swedish experience - and providing absolutely NO >links or sources or figures - buddy goes after the Chinese. Ooooooh, >always good, the Chiiiiiiineeeeeeese. Here: > >"American industry hungrily targets the rising Chinese consumer >class. For the sake of the planet, we better hope it doesn't get its >way. Consider: China's car ownership rate is about one-sixth that of >the U.S. If China achieves rates comparable to the U.S., that would >put an additional 800 million cars on the road. And that's just >China. Even if we somehow succeeded in making China's fleet >super-efficient, it would still be more than the planet can >handle.... Of course, the Chinese will also want more electronics, >clothes, meat, processed foods, bigger houses. In short, we can bet >that the rising Chinese middle class will want something close to >what we have. And why shouldn't they?... Everyone is betting, hoping >(assuming?) that technology will eventually help us deliver the >American dream worldwide with no environmental impact. But we may >run out of planet by the time that day comes...." > >So. "Technology can't save us." A fabulous phrase. Donno when the >world got split into people who think it can versus people who think >it can't, but I'm sure it's important to have really badly-thought >out "debates" about this. > >Anyhoo. We then get to the punchline. You and I have to totally >transform our lives. As follows, "If this is chilling - and it >should be - you might wonder, what are our options? Fairness demands >that we cannot prevent, much less discourage, the growing global >consumer class from having the consumer goods we enjoy. Real change >starts with us then, and I'm afraid to say that radical change is in >order. We must figure out a way to consume less, which means driving >less, shopping less, eating less meat (which the U.N. estimates is >responsible for one-fifth of all greenhouse gases), and conserving >food and energy. This means essentially rethinking our >suburban-sprawling, fast-food-gorging, shopaholic society. We must >model for the world...." > >Great. I've worked my whole life on BOTH efficiency AND renewables >and other new technology, but apparently, this dipstick - Firmin >DeBrabander, the chairman of the Humanistic Studies Department at >the Maryland Institute College of Art - thinks we now have to do >this with one hand, efficiency only. > >Do you think this person has done the math? Try it. Assume the >world's technologies are to be frozen in place, and we Westerners >have to change (i.e. "reduce") our environmental output sufficiently >to allow the rest of the world to obtain a sustainable, human, level >of subsistence. > >I donno, here's a back of envelope shot at it. Let's say there are 1 >billion people in "developed" nations, and 6 billion in developing. >Then, looking at lifestyles in China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, >Africa, and so on, I'd estimate an average tripling of their >consumption of materials through meat, transportation fuel, light >and power, heating and cooling, etc. Seem fair? (After all, India, >Pakistan, Nigeria and so on have per capita incomes of around $3,000 >only, while we're at >$40,000. So that would take them to 1/4 of >ours.) > >Anyone trying the math? Basically, if we want to 3X the per capita >income of India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and South Africa, the >people of the United States have to reduce their consumption by >100%. > >The world is already out of whack, and throwing out excess >emissions. It's not sustainable. And yet we've now got another 6 >billion people racing to try to have SOME sort of life. > >So... what the hell is wrong with guys like this DeBrabander? Why >can't we just say, "We need new technologies, cleaner ones, AND we >need to cut back on meat, drive less, live in smaller homes, etc." > >Fail. > > by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:47 pm All best Keith >Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a >dead rat in here somewhere. > >We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to >electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse >gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. > >However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear >(over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources >produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This >document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph >on page 2. >http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) > >So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles >to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% >supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going >up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm >guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. >Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother >to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: >the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than >private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning >bunker C crude). > >Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything >credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of >copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. > >I did find this, dated January 2011: >http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, >which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 >to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV >incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data >for this report. > >Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). > >http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 >(check >the comments by "quinn") > >Darryl > >On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: >> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 >> >> Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org >> >> The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability >> >> by Firmin DeBrabander >> >> What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they >> increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? >> Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. >> >> Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens >> to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, >> clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so >> successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita >> sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse >> gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. >> >> Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you >> expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or >> at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? >> Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they >> obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. >> >> We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new >> green cars to great fanfare. The Chevy Volt, a hybrid with a >> lithium-ion battery, can go 35 miles on electric power alone (after >> charging over night, for example), and GM brags on its website that >> if you limit your daily driving to that distance, you can "commute >> gas-free for an average of $1.50 a day." The Volt's price is listed >> at a very reasonable $33K (if you qualify for the maximum $7500 in >> tax credits). The fully electric Nissan Leaf is advertized for an >> even more reasonable $26K (with qualifying tax credits, naturally). >> What a deal-and it's good for you, too, the carmakers want you to >> know. As GM helpfully points out on its website, "Electricity is a >> cleaner source of power." >> >> Sweden is a model of sustainability innovation, while the US is the >> most voracious consumer on the planet. Based on Sweden's experience >> with green cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. >> Who can doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer >> commutes to work, live even further out in the exurbs, bringing >> development, blacktop and increased emissions with them? >> >> In its current state, the green revolution is largely devoted to the >> effort to provide consumers with the products they have always loved, > > but now in affordable energy efficient versions. The thinking seems >> to be that through this gradual exchange, we can reduce our >> collective carbon footprint. Clearly, however, this approach is >> doomed if we don't reform our absurd consumption habits, which are so >> out-of-whack that they risk undoing any environmental gains we might >> make. Indeed, we are such ardent, addicted consumers that we take >> efficiency gains as license to consume even more! >> >> We need to address consumption fast because-news alert-the current >> consumer class on earth barely amounts to 1 billion people (if that), >> but 2 billion and counting eagerly wait in the wings. >> >> American industry hungrily targets the rising Chinese consumer class. >> For the sake of the planet, we better hope it doesn't get its way. >> Consider: China currently has a car ownership rate approximately >> one-sixth that of the US. If China achieves car ownership rates >> comparable to the US, that would put an additional 800 million cars >> on the road. And that's just China. Even if we somehow succeeded in >> making China's fleet super efficient, it would still be more than the >> planet can handle. >> >> Of course, cars are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to >> Chinese consumer dreams. They will also want more electronics, >> clothes, meat, processed foods-bigger houses. In short, we can bet >> that the rising Chinese middle class will want something close to >> what we have. And why shouldn't they? We have been showcasing our >> middle class comfort worldwide for years through our vast media >> exports. Everyone is betting, hoping-assuming?-that technology will >> eventually help us deliver the American dream worldwide with no >> environmental impact. But clearly, we may run out of planet by the >> time that day comes. Even the American dream in an 'energy efficient >> format' is likely too much for the earth to handle. >> >> If this is chilling-and it should be-you might wonder, what are our >> options? Justice demands that we cannot prevent, much less discourage >> the growing global consumer class from having the consumer goods we >> currently enjoy. Real change starts with us then, and I'm afraid to >> say, radical change is in order. We must figure out a way to consume >> less, which means driving less, shopping less, eating less meat >> (which the UN estimates is responsible for a fifth of all greenhouse >> gases), and conserving food and energy. This means essentially >> rethinking our suburban-sprawling, fast-food-gorging, shopaholic >> society. We must model for the world the changes we hope everyone >> will make to ensure a sustainable future. >> >> It's time to be courageous and think big about altering our >> lifestyle, values and future. The powers that be are reluctant to >> rock the boat with consumers, and have decided that leaving >> consumption habits intact as much as possible is the preferable >> option. They'd rather get us into electric cars, rather than out of >> our cars altogether. Well, we need more than half measures at this >> point. As Sweden proves, unless other more fundamental changes are >> made to our engrained consumption habits, half measures only dig us >> deeper in the hole. >> >> Firmin DeBrabander is Chair of Humanistic Studies and Associate >> Professor of Philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art. >> > > >-- >Darryl McMahon >Project Manager, >Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
