Saving energy is pointless

[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.

[Shaved Monkey]

Saving money and reducing the need to chase the carrot are reward enough for me to save energy.

[Roy]

Saving money and reducing the need to chase the carrot are reward enough for me to save energy.

THIS^^^

[eastbay]

I've saved about $25,000 since 2003 by driving a more efficient vehicle. I would hardly call that pointless.

Me, too. Plus another few grand keeping the house cool in winter and warm in summer. Plus, saved another few grand by not ever using the clothes dryer.

But in the long run, for humanity, it only serves to kick the can down the road a bit.

[Ferretlover]

It all depends on one's perspective.

IE: If you live in First World country, an individual who tries to save energy is infinitisimal in the big old scheme of things--sort of like the amount of time mankind has been on this planet versus the age of the planet. The energy will keep coming until one day it just stops!
But, if one lives off the grid, by choice, or due to the world situation, and they are responsible for collecting the wood or generating, in some way, the energy, then it is not pointless.

[spot5050]

All energy conservation has achieved is to flatten the peak!

I agree.

[spot5050]

I am totally flabergasted to find that the current vote is;

22% yes, 78% no.
8 yes, 28 no.

Wow. That means that most peak-oilers do not believe that oil is a finite resource.

In 10,000 years time nobody will care that you bought an "energy saving" light bulb.

[pstarr]

I am totally flabergasted to find that the current vote is;

22% yes, 78% no.
8 yes, 28 no.

Wow. That means that most peak-oilers do not believe that oil is a finite resource.

huh? I both believe that oil is a finite resource and that I can help the world by saving energy? Am I confused?

[spot5050]

We will use it all eventually.

[SeaGypsy]

The word is "POINTLESS"

pointless

Pronunciation: /ˈpointlis/
adjective
1having little or no sense, use, or purpose:
speculating like this is a pointless exercise
[with infinitive]:
it’s pointless to plan too far ahead
2(of a contest or competitor) without a point scored.

(Online Oxford)

There are plenty of 'POINTS' in saving energy. The OP is not "Saving energy will not save the world". It clearly will not. But the can kicking can go on for a very long time. With a more realistic view of this finite resource early on, we might have only burned a small fraction of what we have already.

[spot5050]

The word is "POINTLESS"

pointless

Pronunciation: /ˈpointlis/
adjective
1having little or no sense, use, or purpose:
speculating like this is a pointless exercise
[with infinitive]:
it’s pointless to plan too far ahead
2(of a contest or competitor) without a point scored.

(Online Oxford)

There are plenty of 'POINTS' in saving energy. The OP is not "Saving energy will not save the world". It clearly will not. But the can kicking can go on for a very long time. With a more realistic view of this finite resource early on, we might have only burned a small fraction of what we have already.

Don't quote the dictionary at me. What's your point?

[pstarr]

The word is "POINTLESS"

Don't quote the dictionary at me. What's your point?

that you don't make sense, don't respond to others comments; that this might be a waste of bandwidth?

Do ya' think?

[spot5050]

that you don't make sense, don't respond to others comments;

I object to the first part, but I accept the second part. I don't read every post. If posts are too long I don't bother reading them.

[SeaGypsy]

Another word for 'pointless' is 'futile'. This requires qualification, to be other than an absolute. Calling saving energy 'absolutely futile' would be an accurate simile to calling it 'pointless'. Clearly a stupid and ignorant comment. If you want to talk about 'Will saving energy save the world or BAU or whatever?' Start a thread called that.

[spot5050]

Then saving energy is important, but only for adapting to a lower-energy, lower-consumption kind of society and lifestyle.

A "lower energy lifestyle" means using fuel more slowly. It merely delays the inevitable.

We need to learn how to do that now, while we still have alternatives to fall back on. Otherwise, when the time comes, we will scramble about in futility trying to figure it out on the fly and become dependent upon the new land lords in post-industrial serfdom.

OK I geddit. You are optimistic - I'm pessimistic. I don't think we will do it.

[spot5050]

Another word for 'pointless' is 'futile'.... Clearly a stupid and ignorant comment.

The most active posters here are the most patronising.