[Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

[Reuben Deumling]

I have to disagree with you Rob. Short--yes, but not entirely true to my
ears.

Jevon's Paradox refers to William Stanley Jevons' 1865 observation that as
James Watt's steam engines were able to go further on a given amount of coal
than earlier machines, more coal was mined to feed the increase in demand
for the services these more energy-efficient engines provided. He noted a
four-fold increase in England's population since the beginning of the 19th
Century and a 16-fold increase in the consumption of coal over the same
period.

We could add plenty of examples from our own experience. New US cars doubled
in fleet average fuel economy between 1975 and 1988, but we now burn more
gasoline per capita than we did when cars were "inefficient." On average,
new US refrigerators use roughly 1/4 as much energy as the average new model
did in the early 1970s, but we use only marginally less energy per capita to
power them today than we did then.

We can (and perhaps will) debate whether the pursuit of energy efficiency is
itself to blame for this poor showing, or if continuing increases in energy
consumption are due to factors unrelated to this, our preferred, strategy.
But regardless, I think it is fair to say that the long standing and
well-funded pursuit of energy efficiency in US policy circles has not so far
managed to reduce per capita, much less total, energy consumption. It may be
a useful strategy toward that end, but it is certainly not sufficient if our
goal is to actually reduce the number of kWhs or BTUs we burn in the course
of our individual and collective lives.

Energy efficiency is something that experts figure out and sell to us.
Energy conservation is something we often already know how to do ourselves.
It has a lot to do with habit, and usually requires little additional
hardware. I've found this list very useful in inspiring new energy
conservation tricks.

As an aside, 'energy intensity,' as I understand it, is generally used to
describe the ratio of energy to economic output--usually GDP. As such it is
an even less useful measure than energy efficiency because we know that GDP
can (almost always) be counted on to grow over time. If the amount of energy
consumed per $ of GDP falls (as it is asserted), this says preciously little
about how much energy is actually being consumed. The differential rate at
which the two in fact are growing may be of interest to economists and some
policy makers, but it doesn't help us figure out how to, say, reduce the
chances of/slow down/avoid global warming.

Reuben Deumling


On 2/22/07, Rob Tom < ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:40 -0500, Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance
> <chalicenew at earthlink.net > wrote:
>
> > I question the whole Energy Efficiency as God thing. Not wasting energy
> > is an appealing notion, but does it really come close to solving the
> > problem?
>
>
> Short answer: Yes
>
> Energy intensity is directly related to and directly reflects resource
> depletion (and hence habitat destruction), air and water pollution (and
> hence species destruction), greenhouse gas production and hence global
> warming (and hence all non-cockroach life on this planet destruction).
>
> Reducing energy intensity (ie energy efficiency) includes reducing
> embodied energy and  long-term operating energy.
>
> So which aspect of the "problem" is not addressed by implementing energy
> efficiency measures ?