[DoctorDoom]

For example: If sales at company A fell 10%.

Which of the following was the culprit?

1. Conservation 10%
2. Demand destruction 10%
3. Loss sales 10%

Doesn't really matter does it?

Lost sales are lost sales = loss of jobs.

True - for that company. But company B could gain 10% or more as a result of reallocation of priorities. Why do you assume it's a zero-sum game? Furthermore, at some level I realy don't care if energy producers lose sales, especially since many of them are corrupt foreign governments. And even for them, I dispute the idea that using less energy means energy producers will see fewer sales. They'll see fewer unit sales but not necessarily fewer dollars. To use extreme numbers, suppose SA goes from selling 10 mbd at $60 to 5 mbd at $120. Net result is SA government is still raking in the same amount of money. Note that SA's lifting costs per barrel are just a few bucks a barrel - it's not like the number of workers is changing with price fluctuations, just the pure profit for the SA government.

That's because 40% of GDP growth is financial speculation and debt-financed, not the result of the real production of goods and services that raised purchasing wages, thus less consumption of energy to achieve a rise in GDP.

That's your opinion, but it's not widely shared. Exactly what is "real" goods and services? Who decides how to value it, you? Me? Is a new Harry Potter book a "real" good or service? How about a pro ball game? These things generate "GDP" far out of proportion to any utilitarian value that, say, a martian looking at the earth through a telescope might think they have. None of this is to say you're wrong about the ticking debt bomb, mind you.

Prices will rise yes, but will they rise as much as they would have without the increase in efficiency? In a free market they won't. The lower price will increase consumption.

Look at what is happening with gas prices right now. As the price drops, demand increases.

We are still pre-peak. So the short answer is yes, prices will rise sufficiently to balance demand with supply. You can't use what you can't produce. To think otherwise is against the laws of both physics and economics.

[MonteQuest]

For example: If sales at company A fell 10%.

Which of the following was the culprit?

1. Conservation 10%
2. Demand destruction 10%
3. Loss sales 10%

Doesn't really matter does it?

Lost sales are lost sales = loss of jobs.

True - for that company. But company B could gain 10% or more as a result of reallocation of priorities.

Then where is the conservation gain?

Furthermore, at some level I realy don't care if energy producers lose sales, especially since many of them are corrupt foreign governments.

But it's not just energy producers. It is everyone else along the domino trail, people drive less and they consume less, not just oil and gas , but everything along the highway.

That's because 40% of GDP growth is financial speculation and debt-financed, not the result of the real production of goods and services that raised purchasing wages, thus less consumption of energy to achieve a rise in GDP.

That's your opinion, but it's not widely shared.

It's not? Prudentbear.com, Morgan Stanley, financialsense.com seem to think so. It's their opinion, not mine.

$248 trillion derivatives market in a $40 trillion economy and there is no speculation?

Exactly what is "real" goods and services?

It's certaintly not refi-ATM money spent at Wal-Mart.

Prices will rise yes, but will they rise as much as they would have without the increase in efficiency? In a free market they won't. The lower price will increase consumption.

Look at what is happening with gas prices right now. As the price drops, demand increases.

We are still pre-peak. So the short answer is yes, prices will rise sufficiently to balance demand with supply. You can't use what you can't produce. To think otherwise is against the laws of both physics and economics.

So, conservation will not lower the price because conservation can't increase supply post -peak? Either conservation will increase available supply, thus lowering the price or it will not. If it won't, then why bother?

If it does increase supply and lower the price, then consumption will rise as a result. Jevon's Paradox.

[SolarDave]

(intermediate quote trimmed)

The result= the standard of living for all must come down in order for conservation to be effective.

An interesting point. However, I would suggest that "standard of consumption" is what needs to be lowered, not the "standard of living."

It is not always true that reducing consumption reduces one's standard of living. Take compact fluorescent bulbs for example. OK, so the light looks "different" but the lumens are there - less consumption, same standard of living.

If the next trillion $$$ were spent on finding similar solutions, rather than maintaining the "standard of consumption" - I suspect many of the problems dicsussed on this board would be addressed. I doubt the world energy requirements are rising faster than efficiency can be raised - at least at this moment in time.

Ultimately, if the "standard of consumption" is lowered enough, generation of power may remain important but easily addressed through the alternatives that seem to be so small today in the face of the tremendous energy waste we enjoy to support our standard of living.

For example, every time I read a quote on a power company page like this:

Source: Energy Awareness Month Offers Customers Energy Efficiency Tips in Time For The Winter Heating Season

"During the past 14 years, PG&E customers have reduced energy use by 1,500 megawatts of electricity – enough electricity to power more than 1.3 million homes."

It makes me nuts. That is 1.3 million "average" homes - filled with wasteful appliances, power-sucking wall-warts, uninsulated walls and attics.

I live in a house that uses no net elctricity (it is a net generator). How many houses like MINE could that 1,500 megawatts power?

An Infinite Number.

It >> is << possible to lower one's "standard of consumption" while maintaining a constant standard of living. All it takes is will. If we dont't find the will, everything, and I mean everythinig, will just keep getting worse.

[MonteQuest]

(intermediate quote trimmed)

The result= the standard of living for all must come down in order for conservation to be effective.

An interesting point. However, I would suggest that "standard of consumption" is what needs to be lowered, not the "standard of living."

If the next trillion $$$ were spent on finding similar solutions, rather than maintaining the "standard of consumption" - I suspect many of the problems dicsussed on this board would be addressed.

But that is the point. In order to consume less, you must spend less. Just because you spend the money on solutions doesn't result in a net reduction of consumption, it just changes where you use it. In a world where supply can't meet demand, conservation must create a net reduction.

Energy doesn' t care what it gets used for.

It is not always true that reducing consumption reduces one's standard of living. Take compact fluorescent bulbs for example. OK, so the light looks "different" but the lumens are there - less consumption, same standard of living.

The consumption takes place when you buy either bulb. Not to mention Jevon's Paradox. I am a construction superintendent. The advent of more efficient lighting has caused an increase in the number of lights installed, resulting in an increase in use, not a reduction.

[MonteQuest]

That's because 40% of GDP growth is financial speculation and debt-financed, not the result of the real production of goods and services that raised purchasing wages, thus less consumption of energy to achieve a rise in GDP.

That's your opinion, but it's not widely shared.

And an opinion backed by the numbers:

Over Greenspan’s long tenure as Fed Chairman, as America’s debt has grown to unprecedented levels in terms of total debt versus GDP, economic distortions show themselves in the functioning of US economy in terms of GDP growth per dollar of debt increase. Debt induced distortion of the economy from extension of the credit cycle has now increased to such an extent that on a sustained basis, $ 5 of debt is required to produce $ 1 of nominal GDP growth (not adjusted for inflation).

In 2004 alone, total US debt increased $2.8 trillion or at a rate of 24% of the nation’s annual GDP. However, the GDP grew only 7% or $763 billion to $11.7 trillion in nominal terms. With a true inflation rate in the range of 6% for 2004, we now see that increasing the debt level by 24% produced only 1% of net growth – and Greenspan himself notes that $700 billion of economic activity in 2004 originated from capital gains on home sales and real estate equity extraction (lines of credit, cash-out remortgaging, etc.)23. In other words, the economy has become so malstructured that without unsustainable housing bubble activity, the economy contracted by $600 billion in 2004. Subtract the temporary speculative activity by financial services companies boosting apparent economic activity, and GDP declines even further. With rising interest rates, the increase in debt required to continue the economy can no longer be maintained.

[url=http://www.prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?
category=Guest+Commentary&content_idx=49402]Prudentbear.com[/url]

That's because 40% of GDP growth is financial speculation and debt-financed, not the result of the real production of goods and services that raised purchasing wages, thus less consumption of energy to achieve a rise in GDP.

An when this all unwinds...

“When a central bank expands the money stock, it does not enlarge the (real) pool of funds. It gives rise to the consumption of goods, which is not preceded by production (and savings). It leads to less means of sustenance. As long as the pool of funding continues to expand, loose monetary policies give the impression that economic activity is being boosted. That this is not the case becomes apparent as soon as the pool of funding begins to stagnate or shrink. Once this happens, the economy begins its downwards plunge. The most aggressive loosening of money will not reverse the plunge…”

[Curmudgicus]

In order to consume less, you must spend less.

If only that were true in the absolute.

There are some very intelligent arguments being made at the detail level for a problem that isn't particularly prone to being affected by the details.

The American economy as it currently exists is largely the manufacture and/or importation and consumption of non-essential products. We're not talking about food/clothing/shelter, but plasma TV's, games, fashion, restaurants, candy, etc. If the American consumer purchased everyday items as if their entire retirement income depended upon the gross amount they managed to save (for most people now, it actually does) in the manner of Japanese consumers, then deflation would have occurred years ago, (as it did in Japan.)

The conditioned response of the American consumer to the power of advertising ought to be taught in Home Economics courses in every high school in America. The energy we are squandering is nearly 90% used to make non-essential products or support non-essential services that KEEP AMERICANS WORKING. Every time a recession comes along, the non-essential sector suddenly can't sell a single thing to anyone. The purchasing power of the American consumer is what keeps an otherwise moribund economy ticking over.

Take a good look at your job and ask how very essential it is to the survival of your fellow American. I personally have never held one that qualified.

[backstop]

Further to the growth-preventive impacts of effective conservation measures, it seems worth noting that both conservation and new non-fossil energy supplies face a primary problem in the global marketplace.

In the absence of a worldwide agreement to "Cap & Share" all states' carbon emission rights, (technically known as Contraction & Convergence) will, say, Texans really trust say, Vermonters not to buy up and use all the fuel that Texans have nobly saved ? And just why should any state so trust the US, (given recent conduct) ?

Without such a global treaty, the prospect of either new technologies or energy conservation making any significant difference look remote. Without such a global treaty, the erosion of affordable global oil supplies looks unavoidable.

regards,

Backstop