Dim prospects that 'energy efficient' will pay off: CIBC

[Strelnikov_]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071127.wrubin1127/BNStory/energy/home

Improvements in efficiency have done little to reduce actual energy consumption, as consumers take advantage of those gains to drive bigger cars farther, or heat larger homes, CIBC World Markets Inc. economist Jeff Rubin says in a new report.

In a study released today, Mr. Rubin described an “efficiency paradox” in which technology improvements allow for better energy efficiency, but those savings are lost to greater consumption.

Mr. Rubin noted that governments in the United States have passed tougher energy efficiency regulations in an effort to reduce dependence on foreign oil, or cut emissions of greenhouse gases that are linked to climate change.

“The problem is that energy efficiency is not the final objective — reducing energy consumption must be the final objective to both the challenges of conventional oil depletion and to greenhouse has emissions,” he said.

. . .

++++++++++

The only way we will beat Jevon is with a carbon tax/carbon credits (aka rationing).

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons, who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to Jevons's intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economic theory. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the cost of using a resource which increases demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates.

In his 1865 book The Coal Question, Jevons observed that England's consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced his coal-fired steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of Thomas Newcomen's earlier design. Watt's innovations made coal a more cost effective power source, leading to the increased use of the steam engine in a wide range of industries. This in turn increased total coal consumption, even as the amount of coal required for any particular application fell.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. CONSERVE, CONSERVE, CONSERVE!

It's the only way to get ourselves out of this mess with the least amount of pain. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

[NickB79]

2. The problem is that a carbon tax must be global

If the US enacted carbon taxes that truly reduced energy consumption, that would lower the price of oil, natural gas and coal on the world market. In nations like China and India, striving to emulate the US standard of living, cheaper oil would mean more cars on the roads, releasing more CO2, unless they too enacted carbon taxes. CO2 emissions wouldn't fall, they would just be exported to other nations.

Until humanity as a whole realizes just how grave the situation is, little meaningful change can take place. And by the time humanity does come to it's senses, it may be too late.

[hunter]

3. You don't get rid of fossil fuel power plants by "conserving" energy.

You get rid of fossil fuel power plants by getting rid of fossil fuel power plants.

[greenman3610]

4. I can only drive to work once a day

the thought that I would suddenly want to drive
twice is counterintuitive.

I'm facetious, but clearly, there is a limit to this idea.

If I work under a single light bulb, and I replace that
with a more efficient bulb, I don't need to suddenly
have 2 bulbs.
If I am a corporation that halves the amount of energy
I use in a process, I may take that money and
use it to buy more energy, for new processes,
hiring new people, increasing output - so that's an example of
how efficiency might drive growth, but we
want that kind of growth.

Ultimately, we need to replace fossil fuels with other alternatives,
and one important alternative is better design, more efficient
processes - which is also the cheapest by far. Encouraging it
can only be positive.