[Greenbuilding] [BULK] Re: Debunking Energy Efficency

Fri Feb 23 18:33:53 CST 2007

I think these are good points, but a phrase--or its equivalent--keeps coming
up: "I spent the money I saved from energy efficiency on something else..."
Consumerism does constitute a general case that leaves a carbon trail--the
embodied energy in most of the stuff we buy, from its creation to its
shipping, keeps the old CO2 footprint big.

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: "Lawrence Lile" <LLile at projsolco.com>
Cc: "Greenbuilding" <GREENBUILDING at listserv.repp.org>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] [BULK] Re: Debunking Energy Efficency

> Here's another weirdo for energy efficiency:  In the last 5 years I've
> upgraded from driving 15 MPG vehicles to 40 MPG vehicles (My vehicles
> tend to stay about 20 years behind current technology because I keep
> driving them until they are almost antiques)  I haven't driven more, or
> less, just spent the money somewhere else.  I've raised my house from R5
> walls (egad) to R15 (all I could stuff into them) but have not raised
> the thermostat.
>
> I think that this theory may apply to certain specific processes or
> industries, but not to the general case.  During this period, the
> economy and wealth in the US and Great Britain were generally expanding,
> which is why you'd find coal consumption tracking economic growth and
> population expansion.
>
> The US economy and population is still expanding, and thus energy use
> will continue to expand, despite efficiency gains.
>
> Amory Lovins counts up the amount of energy we would have used if we had
> not implemented the efficiency improvements already done in the last 30
> years, as "Negawatts".  It is a huge, significant number.
>
>
> Lawrence Lile, P.E., LEED AP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Marcoplos
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:25 PM
> To: chalicenew at earthlink.net; Reuben Deumling; Rob Tom
> Cc: Greenbuilding
> Subject: [BULK] Re: [Greenbuilding] Debunking Energy Efficency
> Importance: Low
>
> 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.or
> g
> > 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(r) 1.1.6.0
> > http://www.iolo.com
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding email list
> List info:
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.or
> g
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>