Saving energy is pointless

[dolanbaker]

I voted yes because for every litre of fuel I save is a litre available to be used elsewhere and it will be used!

In the short term yes. But for every litre you don't use, that puts a slight downward pressure on price, meaning less may be extracted and there may be less new holes drilled in the short to medium term. That means in the long run - some might stay in the ground, or maybe not, but it can delay the effects of AGW and the steepness of the down curve.

The point I am making is that other people in other countries are already clamouring for that fuel, any downward pressure on price will be cancelled out by an increased demand.

Energy conservation flattens the peak, the steepness of the down curve will be determined by the technology used to extract what's left.

When the "attic oil" (the stuff that has migrated to the very top of a reservoir) has been taken the field is likely to have a shark fin decline pattern.

[AgentR11]

While I don't think saving energy has any impact outside my own life, the impact that it has on my habits is far from pointless. Our habits are powerful things in our lives, you can't just hit 68 or whatever and say, "ooh, I'll downsize, and go carless." Those who are acclimated to living with a lower energy footprint will spend less time bemoaning their own personal investments in high energy utilization methods, and more time enjoying the world around them. And by consequence of steady downsizing are able to hand off more of their own resources to their child(ren), to whom those of us responsible for adding all that CO2 in the first place owe a considerable sum in compensation.

[Pops]

Saving energy is pointless in a free market unless the goal is to be independent of that market.

I bought some calf feed the other day, for the first time it came in a plastic sack instead of paper.

Natural gas is abundant right now, nevermind the real reason, lets pretend it is abundant because of "conservation" due to the warm winter. Are we actually conserving that resource?

No. It's making plastic cheaper so we're using plastic in places we hadn't before. We always talk about substituting away from fossils but don't forget we always choose to substitute to them given the option.

Energy in a free market gets used. The more one part of the market conserves the less the rest of the market pays and the more of the resource gets used.

[Plantagenet]

I voted "no"---Saving energy is pointless.

You can conserve all you want and live off the grid, but it really has little or no effect on the overall timing or impact of peak oil. Any bit of energy you don't use will be swamped and lost in the rapidly increasing energy use in Chindia. Even if the entire USA simply disappeared and all energy use stopped, China's energy use is expanding so rapidly that it would rebuild all that demand in about 10 years.

Design your own lifestyle to be efficient and smart to save money and improve your own quality of life, but don't imagine you are saving the world. For some people peak oil may mean MORE energy use---for instance I'm doing more foreign travel now because its clear it will be much more expensive in the near future as oil prices continue up.

[pstarr]

I voted "no"---Saving energy is pointless.

then you voted yes.

You can conserve all you want and live off the grid, but it really has little or no effect on the overall timing or impact of peak oil. Any bit of energy you don't use will be swamped and lost in the rapidly increasing energy use in Chindia. Even if the entire USA simply disappeared and all energy use stopped, China's energy use is expanding so rapidly that it would rebuild all that demand in about 10 years.

Design your own lifestyle to be efficient and smart to save money and improve your own quality of life, but don't imagine you are saving the world.

You are equally confused about your own role in the world. People look up to you. You are an example, one of the few with the education, luxury, and wealth to make a difference. Yet you squander it. It'll be a sad day when you wake up from your self-imposed ideological lies.

[Plantagenet]

I voted "no"---Saving energy is pointless.

then you voted yes.

Sorry---you are right. I voted YES--SAVING ENERGY IS POINTLESS.

You are ... one of the few with the education...to make a difference.

Thank you. I try.

---------------------------

I gather from your post that you disagree with my recommendation that people do any foreign traveling or other energy intensive activity they've always wanted to do now because it will be much more expensive in the future. Sorry---but thats likely to be the case.

While folks are insulating their homes and planting their gardens and saving money as gas prices go up, don't forget that if there is anything you've always wanted to do-----no matter how wasteful and energy hoggish it is----do it NOW. Don't let saving energy crowd out your enjoyment of being alive and experiencing the world. If you've always wanted to go to Bali or see the Great Barrier Reef or get an RV and travel around the USA or do a cruise through the Tahitian Islands or get a big 4WD rig and go sheep hunting---DO IT NOW. It will be much much more expensive to do in the future as energy prices rise even higher, if its even still possible to do at all.

[pstarr]

The repub philosophy in all its glory. Crap it up now because you won't get a chance in the future. Lazy bastards invented cynicism. The hipsters are mere pikers in comparison.

Tell you what Planty. I got that travel thing out of my system when I was 16, about the same time I got laid. Now and ever since I've had a different attitude toward my place in the world. It's called doing the right thing. When you try it then you recognize it. I guess you never have.

[kublikhan]

We won't stop until we have used up all the oil. Therefore "saving energy" is pointless - it just changes the timescale.

True or false?

False. This argument seems to imply we will simply and easily transition to another energy source once all the energy is gone, or that concepts like "timescale" are irrelevant. Timescale is hugely relevant! Likewise the difference between a small energy shortfall and large one. We can't simply flip a switch and switch on non oil sources of energy. There are going to be consequences of not having access to all that energy. Saving energy on purpose is a much gentler mistress than forced demand destruction.

[pstarr]

We won't stop until we have used up all the oil. Therefore "saving energy" is pointless - it just changes the timescale.

True or false?

False. This argument seems to imply we will simply and easily transition to another energy source once all the energy is gone, or that concepts like "timescale" are irrelevant. Timescale is hugely relevant! Likewise the difference between a small energy shortfall and large one. We can't simply flip a switch and switch on non oil sources of energy. There are going to be consequences of not having access to all that energy. Saving energy on purpose is a much gentler mistress than forced demand destruction.

It's what Hirsch said back in 2005. Peak-oil mitigation efforts must begin least twenty years prior to peak oil to avoid serious economic/social disruptions and crisis. Have we done that? No. We're waiting for just the exact right political leader to carry us over dat' riba' jordan, to dem' promise-lans' Praise the Partisan.

[smiley]

What about consuming as much as possible?

People are not going to act on alternatives or energy efficiency unless there is an actual shortage. I think we can be pretty certain of that.

Shortages are either caused by increasing demand or decreasing supply. Now we can all be very righteous, conserving etc, and try to get the good message across.

Or we can consume the hell out of it and drive the world to shortage to get things going.

Those guys racing the left lane with a 5000 lbs SUV or whizzing around in private yets may actually be doing us a favor. They drive prices up to a point that average Joe starts reading in on double glazing. So why not join them?

Just a thought

[pstarr]

that's planty's theory. F@ck it up as quick as possible so we can cross over to the promised land. Or as you put it; "get things going." Granted that sounds awfully entertaining, especially from my vantage point behind the Redwood Curtain, in the fog and food belt.

[Plantagenet]

that's planty's theory. F@ck it up as quick as possible so we can cross over to the promised land.

No starry--- thats not my theory.

Try to calm down a bit---you've got a habit of going off half-cocked based on your own simplistic worldview rather than what has actually been posted. No one ever suggested that we "f@ck it up as quick as possible" except you.

[smiley]

that's planty's theory. F@ck it up as quick as possible

No there is a slight twist. The 70's oil embargo and resulting price shock was very effective in promoting energy efficiency, and had a lasting effect. Without it, I think we would have ran out of production capacity years ago.

Now I do not have an oil well in my backyard, but I can withold oil from the market by using it myself. By creating artificial shortages you can get the desired reaction before actual supply driven shortages emerge.

Trick is to have demand temporarely outpace production, price inelasticity and investor hysteria do the rest.

... And of course I'm looking for a good excuse. Don't care about most material stuff, but I am still a long way from being done with seeing the world

[dolanbaker]

that's planty's theory. F@ck it up as quick as possible

No there is a slight twist. The 70's oil embargo and resulting price shock was very effective in promoting energy efficiency, and had a lasting effect. Without it, I think we would have ran out of production capacity years ago.

That is a key point that needs to be brought up every time someone says that the people warning of shortages in the 1970s were wrong, just like the y2k issue, avoiding action was taken.

But unlike y2k, oil depletion has just been delayed, conservation just delays it a bit more (or allows others to consume the "spare"). Without conservation, Chindia would have had to do without the extra oil, they would simply have burned even more coal!

[SeaGypsy]

that's planty's theory. F@ck it up as quick as possible

No there is a slight twist. The 70's oil embargo and resulting price shock was very effective in promoting energy efficiency, and had a lasting effect. Without it, I think we would have ran out of production capacity years ago.

Now I do not have an oil well in my backyard, but I can withold oil from the market by using it myself. By creating artificial shortages you can get the desired reaction before actual supply driven shortages emerge.

Trick is to have demand temporarely outpace production, price inelasticity and investor hysteria do the rest.

... And of course I'm looking for a good excuse. Don't care about most material stuff, but I am still a long way from being done with seeing the world

Of the $25k I have saved in 5 years of non car ownership (bar a few months) I have spent about the same amount on international travel. Of this about half in airfares. As far as value goes, I consider these trips o/s a bargain. The experience of going somewhere totally new and different when compared to driving to work to pay to drive to work, can hardly be compared. Also I think all forms of mass transit, including air travel, are more efficient than ownership and running costs associated with any form of private ICV much above a scooter. Production of a vehicle to do 10,000 mile a year (spend 99% of the time in a garage) is not efficient when compared to production of a vehicle which never stops working except for maintenance. It is not uncommon for a taxi to get well over 1 million km on a standard V6 engine running on LPG, while most private cars are in need of new engines with less than half that. There are many ways to do the maths on efficiency and to value the saving. Calling it pointless is basically spiteful.

[Keith_McClary]

I voted yes because for every litre of fuel I save is a litre available to be used elsewhere and it will be used!

In the short term yes. But for every litre you don't use, that puts a slight downward pressure on price, meaning less may be extracted and there may be less new holes drilled in the short to medium term. That means in the long run - some might stay in the ground, or maybe not, but it can delay the effects of AGW and the steepness of the down curve.

But won't lower prices just encourage consumption?

If you really want to keep it in the ground, buy up reserves and don't produce them. You could set up a fund similar to the "buy an acre of rainforest" (World Land Trust) concept. You could call it "World Oil Trust".

Oh, wait, ... Rockefeller probably trademarked that name.

[Loki]

I'm smelling an awful lot of Jevon's Paradox bullshit in this thread. I really do wish people would read the literature. Conservation does not lead to increased consumption.

But I suppose an argument could be made for burning it all ASAP, assuming pathological narcissism is your guiding philosophy (which it is for many posters here). Climate and future generations be damned, it's all about me, me, me, now, now, now! The morality of a two year old.

Those who are acclimated to living with a lower energy footprint will spend less time bemoaning their own personal investments in high energy utilization methods, and more time enjoying the world around them. And by consequence of steady downsizing are able to hand off more of their own resources to their child(ren), to whom those of us responsible for adding all that CO2 in the first place owe a considerable sum in compensation.

Nicely said, I agree completely.

[AdTheNad]

I voted yes because for every litre of fuel I save is a litre available to be used elsewhere and it will be used!

In the short term yes. But for every litre you don't use, that puts a slight downward pressure on price, meaning less may be extracted and there may be less new holes drilled in the short to medium term. That means in the long run - some might stay in the ground, or maybe not, but it can delay the effects of AGW and the steepness of the down curve.

But won't lower prices just encourage consumption?

Encourage other people to consume now sure, and it will all be consumed too. But the reduced price can prevent an extra hole being drilled for a short time, which to the tiniest degree can delays things.

If you really want to keep it in the ground, buy up reserves and don't produce them. You could set up a fund similar to the "buy an acre of rainforest" (World Land Trust) concept. You could call it "World Oil Trust".

You only really own what you can protect and hold, or pay people to protect. I don't think I could defend my own home let alone a rainforest or oil well from starving hordes. I hope others can though.

[smiley]

But I suppose an argument could be made for burning it all ASAP, assuming pathological narcissism is your guiding philosophy (which it is for many posters here). Climate and future generations be damned, it's all about me, me, me, now, now, now! The morality of a two year old.

Squandering resources is egocentric in nature. Claiming the moral high ground, now that is a very narcissistic trait, as I'm sure Ovidus would agree.

As for conservation, I am actually doing quite a bit. But I refuse to sacrifice on those things which make my life worthwhile. That one life I get is a bit too precious to waste.

Am I doing enough? Maybe, maybe not, certainly not by the standards of the hardcore conservationists.

Saving energy is not pointless, but it becomes so when it gets in the way of living.

It's about where you draw the line.
---------------------

Dead Kennedies - Where do ya draw the line
....
Where do ya draw the line
I'm not telling you I'm asking you
Ever notice hard line radicals
Can go on start trips too
Where no one's pure and right
Except themselves "I'm cleansed of the system."
('Cept when my amp needs electric power)
Or-"The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets."
You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat
What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings
...

[Keith_McClary]

I don't think I could defend my own home let alone a rainforest or oil well from starving hordes. I hope others can though.

Oil wells tend to be located in the middle of nowhere, far from the nearest refinery (because the nearby ones were pumped dry first). Your average horde probably can't tell the difference between a capped well and a Christmas Tree.