Aaron, in the Death By Conservation thread, you posted this link
http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreport ... EN=7028302
--Right in the first sentence of that article I see a huge problem:
“Intuitively it seems obvious to most observers that increasing energy efficiency will ultimately reduce demand for an energy resource such as electricity.”
--This does not seem “intuitively obvious” to me; it seems a pretty fallacious, incomplete and simplistic idea. Increasing energy efficiency may not reduce TOTAL energy (substitute electricity for the above case) demand if the TOTAL POPULATION increases. In other words, if efficiency is increased and the population increases also to an extent that destroys the energy savings from increased efficiency, that might increase the total energy sink. In that kind of scenario, an increase in demand could be explained by “the numbers game”: the more people there are consuming, the more energy will be consumed overall. However, more people overall being even more conservative in their behavior than before could actually use
less energy in total, the same number of people overall being more conservative could use
less energy in total, less people overall being more conservative could even use
less energy in total. Likewise, more people overall being less conservative than before could consume
more energy in total, the same number of people overall being less conservative could consume
more energy in total, and less people overall being less conservative could consume
more energy in total.
One way to possibly “prove” the efficiency-increases-consumption idea is “valid” would be to show that increased efficiency
only and directly has increased the human population in the past,
only and directly increases the human population today, and
only and directly will increase the human population in future, which directly lead/leads/will lead to increased energy consumption. I think you need to show a causal relationship between all those events, and it would also be nice if you could prove the extent of any causal relationships—like X amount of an increase in efficiency translates into Y amount of an increase in population and Z amount of an increase in consumption—and what factors contribute to possibly changing those causal relationships' end-values. All of that would likely be very tough to “prove,” IMO, but if people are going to be so dogmatically Dick Cheney on this issue, I think they should try hard to prove their premises are “valid” (assuming there is such a thing as being “valid,” which may be a big assumption). Also, even if you could prove that two events had a causal relationship in the past, that doesn’t necessarily mean that same causal relationship will happen in future, nor does it necessarily mean that if it did happen in future, it would happen to the exact same extent. It could be that efficiency directly increased consumption in times-past; I think it’s possible it contributed to some short-term consumption increases. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean efficiency will directly increase consumption in times-future in the same way, or to the same extent, or even at all.
There is another issue too when trying to prove many scenarios/premises are “true” and/or “accurate”—I think this is inherent in the nature of making observations, making predictions and drawing conclusions: generally, in the known universe (seemingly to humans), when you take one path, you exclude all other paths. Let’s assume we’ve taken Path A. We don’t have two or more identical parallel universes we could use to test what would have happened if we had taken Paths B, C, D, etc., instead of Path A, because once we’ve taken Path A, we’ve changed the parameters in existence before we embarked on our path-taking journey. We likely can’t just then try Path B and look at those results and accurately say “this is what would have happened by taking Path B directly, so it’s better to take Path A”; we can’t likely accurately speculate on what would have happened if we had taken Path B first—had we done so, Path B’s results might have been better. We took Path A first, so now we’re stuck in a having-taken-Path A-influenced universe, so to speak. In observation what I think we should generally stick to illustrating with any kind of confidence is what we believe we've actually observed. Still, I’m going to break that rule because I think this idea is important: even if we could show that in the past increased energy efficiency only and directly lead to increased consumption, how could we prove without a lot of doubt attached that increased consumption wouldn’t have happened anyway for some other reason or that an even HIGHER increase in consumption wouldn’t have happened had we not increased efficiency? We probably couldn’t. Many people say arguments shouldn’t be approached in that manner, and often they shouldn’t as I’ve just described because the person arguing may be accused of using “fallacies.” However, that we can’t take many paths at the exact same time and look at the results of various paths shows that for accuracy’s sake we should probably avoid making dogmatic claims about i.e. seeming causal relationships between two events and about the exact nature of an assumed causal relationship between two events. Two seemingly linked events may both have happened anyway regardless of the presence of the other event.
In that same thread, Aaron, you posted a bar-graph with some numbers. Maybe I’m losing my mind here (I am going on two-hours of sleep in the past 48 hours right now), but the graph looks as if it’s saying that 2002 was less efficient and had more of a gasoline (energy) sink, and 1975 was more efficient and had less of a gasoline sink. I think (I think) you posted it to try to show that 1975 being so efficient set the stage for that later increase in gasoline consumption over the next 27 years—am I mistaken there? IMO, that graph doesn’t seem to include a number of things, several of them being: overall human population comparison between 1975 and 2002; a comparison/growth chart of the number of cars being used; a comparison/growth chart of car-pooling use, public transportation use, etc. that may have put more/less cars on the road (lifestyle changes in other words that may have occurred both before and after the efficiency increase and may have contributed to increased and decreased consumption before and after, though I guess you might argue that the increased efficiency caused more widespread travel, and not the other way around--I think it’s the chicken and the egg thing here as usual); and any new developments (scientific, political or otherwise) that allowed for more energy being available (seemingly) that were not caused by increased efficiency but led to a greater feeling of “I’m secure to consume/waste more.” I’ve seen different calculations from different individuals/groups with different results on the above, as is usually the case on an issue. But if you want to imply/claim (which seems to me to be at least part of your premise) that increasing efficiency (or conservation)* in specific ultimately increased overall gasoline use in the past, then I think you should show a direct correlation between increased efficiency and overall gasoline consumption that cannot easily be explained by any other change that might affect that total gasoline use. You haven’t really shown that. But then I doubt that anyone can, especially very accurately, because there are probably so many factors that would go into this....
Another quote from that page:
“The rebound effect (also referred to as the "take-back" or "snap-back") was first described in 1865 when Stanley Jevons observed that the introduction of the new efficient steam engine initially decreased coal consumption which led to a drop in the price of coal. This meant not only that more people could afford coal, but also that coal was now economically viable for new uses, which ultimately greatly increased coal consumption 2.”
--Did the increased engine efficiency directly increase consumption later on according to this? It sounds like the
drop in price may have increased consumption
directly later on and the increased efficiency may have
indirectly decreased the price of coal. However, the above statement alone indicates something else to me: just because efficiency in producing/operating a product has increased doesn’t necessarily mean all the proper costs have been attributed to using that product and the stuff that may be powering it. Maybe costs for coal shouldn’t have declined so fast or at all just because the steam engine suddenly may have seemed more efficient (assuming the cost had dropped for that reason—see below). I think one lesson that could be learned if this proposed effect is indeed real is: just because you increase short-term efficiency, don’t go getting too excited and immediately start lowering prices. Maybe things other than efficiency should be a lot more important when determining price. When I say “seemed more efficient,” I primarily mean: how much predictive calculations were done on the future long-term
real costs of coal being economically cheap but environmentally expensive? Dollar values attached to goods have notoriously been fallacious and foolhardy, IMO. Also, this part of that statement “the new efficient steam engine initially decreased coal consumption”--has it been “proven” that this and only this, or at least primarily this, directly initially led to a drop in the price of coal? Has that part of the statement been proven true? If it has been proven true, to what extent did it contribute to that drop in price--a large extent, a modest extent, a small extent? Isn’t it possible that other factors had a greater influence on a drop in the price of coal, like increased overall supply, for example? Though, really, I know little on the history of coal supplies. I’m just trying to point out in general that I don’t think the situation is likely as simple as Event A directly causing Event B. Maybe many things to varying degrees are responsible for Event B occurring. In many cases, that seems to be the way the Universe works....
*(Are “efficiency” and “conservation” one and the same, and are they causally linked or necessarily linked at all? They seem to be two separate ideas that usually serve different functions. Just because a fuel/machine is efficient doesn’t automatically mean it will be conserved or wasted in use: efficiency usually refers to inherent design and ultimate functioning capability; conservation usually refers to how the object created from the design is ultimately used by someone. I think switching back and forth between the two words can introduce confusion: a causal/synonymous link between them on this whole issue has been postulated, not proven, IMO. But maybe the denotations and connotations of both words vary depending on who’s doing the talking. It might be a good idea to set down definitions for the two as they’re normally used w.r.t. peak oil. If there are some set down here, point me to them please.)
Fran (Sorry for the super-long posts!)