[Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

Fri Feb 23 04:41:16 CST 2007

Theory is one thing, while reality can be another. I can assure you that 
every avenue of energy efficiency I enlist for my clients or my own family 
ends in less energy used. Period.

Ron

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Marcoplos" <marcoplos at bellsouth.net>
To: <chalicenew at earthlink.net>; "Reuben Deumling" <9watts at gmail.com>; "Rob 
Tom" <ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca>
Cc: "Greenbuilding" <GREENBUILDING at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

I can't speak for others, but the more energy-efficient I become, the less
energy I use. It doesn't make me want to binge on energy use. This may be
more complicated than I am recognizing, but if it works for me I've got to
believe it can work for others. In fact, now that I think about it, I know
that loads of people that I know have incorporated energy efficiency and
they are - hold the presses - saving energy! Do I only know weirdos? Do I
not know enough science?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance" <chalicenew at earthlink.net>
To: "Reuben Deumling" <9watts at gmail.com>; "Rob Tom" <ArchiLogic at yahoo.ca>
Cc: "Greenbuilding" <GREENBUILDING at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency

> Yeah, Reuben!
>
> BTW, Monbiot also refers to Jevons when explaining the Khazzoom-Brookes
> Postulate. Monbiot further implies that this phenomenon arises from
> capitalist consumer society.
>
> Here's a quote from the book:
>
> "The postulate works like this. As efficiency improves, people or
> companies
> can use the same amount of energy to produce more services. This means
> that
> the cost of energy for any one service has fallen. This has two effects.
> The
> first is that the money you would otherwise have spent on energy is
> released
> to spend on something else. The second is that as processes which use a
> lot
> of energy become more efficient, they look more financially attractive
> than
> they were before. So when you are deciding what to spend your extra money
> on, you will invest in more energy-intensive processes than you would
> otherwise have done. The extraordinary result is that, in a free market,
> energy efficiency could increase energy use. ...The Khazzoom-Brookes
> Postulate appears to explain why the corporations, by pursuing their own
> cost-cutting interests, have not saved the planet."
>
> He goes on to say that it's only a postulate and is fiercely debated.
>
> ****Three cheers for carbon rationing--.9 ton per person across the planet
> will do it!!!!*****
>
>
> 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: Reuben Deumling
> To: Rob Tom
> Cc: Mary Bull - Greenwood Earth Alliance ; Greenbuilding
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency
>
>
> 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 ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________
> No viruses found in incoming message
> Scanned by iolo AntiVirus® 1.1.6.0
> http://www.iolo.com
>

_______________________________________________
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

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.412 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/697 - Release Date: 2/22/2007