[Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

[Ted Inoue]

ok, I've answered my own question
http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/energy/eng-80.cfm?&CFID=8528214&CFTOKEN=36683570

The effect is called the "rebound effect" and it is indeed an economic
principle. But, further, it is no necesarily so strong an effect that it
negates the increase in efficiency. From the above reference:

"Intuitively it seems obvious to most observers that increasing energy
efficiency will ultimately reduce demand for an energy resource such as
electricity. Paradoxically, economic theory suggests that this decrease in
demand and subsequent decrease in cost of using the resource could cause a
rebound in demand. A commonly cited example is an increase in the efficiency
of home air conditioning which may reduce the resident's monetary incentive
to conserve. The resident may opt to change the thermostat setting to keep
the amount he pays constant, but living at a more comfortable temperature.
When actually measured this "Rebound Effect" is generally acknowledged to
lower predicted reductions in electricity demand by 10%-40% depending on the
device that is made more efficient."




On 2/22/07, Ted Inoue <tedinoue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Would one of you please give a specific reference to this research. I've
> googled quite a bit and reached dead ends because there are so many hits for
> George Monbiot. I remember reading about this theory some time ago but would
> like to go back and review it in more detail.
>
> In spite of my ignorance of this particular theory, I am most skeptical of
> how generalizable the theory is and fear that a sound economic theory has
> been improperly extrapolated. While it may in fact be 'proven' by economic
> and sociological studies that as products and services become less
> expensive, people keep their overall spending constant, hence increasing
> consumption, it does not follow that one can extrapolate this indefinitely.
> I would be extremely surprised if this 'law' was shown to be linear over all
> values.
>
> Applied to energy efficiency, it could indeed be true that increasing an
> auto's efficiency by, say 10% results in the owners driving somewhat more
> because energy is seen as cheap. However, that does NOT imply that
> increasing efficiency by 20% or 50% or 80% will result in a proportionally
> larger amount of consumption. Quite often, people look at a small segment of
> a graph that shows a statistically linear dependency and conclude that the
> sections outside of the measured region follows the same rules.
>
> Anyway, as noted, I'd like to see the original source material so that I
> can comment on the particularls of the study.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 2/22/07, Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance <chalicenew at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Please read Monbiot, or some of the other comments on this list: Auto
> > fuel-efficiency leads to more driving; manufacturing efficiency leads to
> > more manufacturing...and increased use of fuel/energy and emissions.
> >
> >
> > Mary Bull, Co-director
> > Greenwood Earth Alliance, Save the Redwoods - Boycott the Gap Campaign
> > 252 Frederick, San Francisco, CA 94117 http://www.gapsucks.org
> > Chalice Farm and Sustainable Living Center, 748 Montgomery Rd,
> > Sebastopol CA
> > 95472
> > 415-731-7924 - 415-509-1188 chalicenew at earthlink.net
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rob Tom" < ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca>
> > To: "Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance" <chalicenew at earthlink.net>;
> > "Greenbuilding" < GREENBUILDING at listserv.repp.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 12:14 PM
> > Subject: Re:Debunking Energy Efficency
> >
> >
> > 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 ?
> >
> >
> >
> > === * ===
> > Rob Tom
> > Kanata, Ontario, Canada
> > <A r c h i L o g i c   at  c h a f f y a h o o   dot   c a >
> > winnow the chaff from my edress in your reply
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Greenbuilding email list
> > List info: http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
> >
> > List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> > Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
> >       publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec(r)
> > Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
> >
>
>