The Jevons Paradox is a special case of the central platitude of capitalist apologetics, "technology [i.e. capital accumulation] creates more jobs than it destroys." I'm not just saying that. Jevons explained it in The Coal Question. In my 200th anniversary post on "The Luddite Question" I discuss the rebound effect in relation to the Luddite apprehension, the technological optimist position and, crucially, Marx's views on periodicity, unemployment and accumulation.
http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.com/2011/03/luddite-question-rhythm-rebounds-and.html On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:18 AM, <[email protected]>wrote: > ------- Start of forwarded message ------- > From: Howard Ehrman <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:45:55 -0600 > To: [email protected] > Cc: No group <[email protected]>, > No Carbon Trade <[email protected]>, > [email protected], CJN List <[email protected]>, > Durban Group Climate Justice <[email protected]> > Subject: [Nocarbontrade-l] Help me Understand? Energy efficiency alone > leads > to higher emissions??? > > > Hello, > > So help me understand how Matt, Michael and others who > responded to the issue of Jevon's Paradox feel about it??: > > do you believe it is or could be real today, are not sure or > don't believe it is relevant 150 years after first stated? > > It would be helpful if people on these lists also would > clarify how they feel about "Natural Capitalism" the > ideological foundation of the Lovins, Hawkins and others who > state on their website: > > http://rmi.org/rmi/Natural++Capitalism > > "Natural capital" refers to the earth's natural resources > and the ecological systems that provide vital life-support > services to society and all living things. These services > are of immense economic value; some are literally priceless, > since they have no known substitutes. Yet current business > practices typically fail to take into account the value of > these assets -- which is rising with their scarcity. As a > result, natural capital is being degraded and liquidated by > the very wasteful use of resources such as energy, > materials, water, fiber, and topsoil. > > In Lovins response to the article in question he states: > > "In eleven of the past thirty-four years, U.S. energy use > fell;" > > Yet according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration > (see graphs below) total U.S. energy Consumption tripled > between 1950-2000 and increased almost every year until the > economic crisis of 2008 > > Lovins, Hawkins, and others believe in capitalism and that > by working with it to make it "more efficient" we can save > the earth > > This, like "Natural Capitalism", perhaps the greatest > oxymoron ever created in the english language, fails to take > into account, as John Foster Bellamy clearly explains in his > November, 2010 Monthly Review article on the Jevons Paradox, > that it is a law of capitalism that it will both foster, > facilitate and use efficiency gains to expand the scope, > breadth and depth of consumption at all costs to Mother > Earth and everything that inhabits her, in order to increase > profits, profit margins and ratios in particular. > > Lovins writes and talks about other non-truths, like it is > increasing "wealth", not the mass production of "efficient" > everything tied directly to the capitalist means of > extraction, production, transportation, consumption and > disposal that causes people to buy and use more "efficient" > products > > Whose wealth is he talking about? > > we all know that the last time the vast majority of > U.S. residents income increased in relation to overall cost > of living was at least 35 years ago, similar to what has > gone on in most of the world > > The only wealth that has been increasing is the > concentration of wealth, and all power, into the hands of > relatively fewer and fewer people and the trans-national > banks and corporations they control > > Of course everyone on these lists knows it is the massive > increased extraction of Mother's Earths resources and total > control of the globalized market via the world bank, WTO, > IMF, etc. that results in capitalism's production of "cheap, > disposable, "efficient" products: that are never really > efficient if you investigate the entire life cycle of any > product > > While it is true that the Jevons Paradox may not apply to > everything: > > for example as Lovins states replacing your old 60% > efficient heater with a 90%+ one will probably not be > overcome by the Jevons Paradox, in most macro cases the > Jevons Paradox is still very much in effect at the Macro > level because, last time I checked, capitalism was in > control of most of the world > > The fundamental question regarding energy that I have not > seen very much of on these lists (perhaps I missed it) is: > > energy conservation & the actual, absolute (not relative) > decrease in per capita energy use by most in the global > north & elites in the global south > > both of these critical areas are in complete contradiction > with capitalism and almost all forms of "development" > including "sustainable development" (another oxymoron in how > most use it) > > there is absolutely no way we can hope to keep fossil fuels > in the ground, stop everything else in & on top of the > ground from becoming fuel if we do not start from that > premise > > There is no way that absolute energy conservation can be put > into practice on a Macro scale within a capitalist system, > especially the global capitalist matrix we all live in > > Since Lovins is a smart guy and he supports capitalism, > along with all the big greens (who, like Lovins get lots of > $$$$ support from capitalism), perhaps that is why he does > not talk about conservation, especially in an absolute > sense, but instead supports efficiency as the solution, > which is fully compatible with capitalism of the 21st > century as it was in the 19th century > > There is no more important example of efficiency "will > solve everything" thinking & practice than Lovins, and > other Jevons' Deniers, love of Green Cars- > > those on these lists and throughout the green, > environmental, and CJ movement who support green cars or are > honestly, sincerely confused about them do not want to give > up the individualistic lifestyle "Geoengineered" by GM, > Firestone, Ford, etc. & the U.S. and other governments they > have controlled the last 65 years, that has destroyed the > earth since WWII. Led by individual motor vehicles and the > 69,000,000 Km of roads, billions of hectares of land > destroyed and the use of CO2 intensive cement and asphalt > those with cars have been "rewarded" w/ freedom! > > if you have not seen it please take the time to watch "Taken > for a Ride" on YouTube: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAc4w11Yzys > > the green car supporters refuse to accept the facts that the > entire "life cycle" of a car, even one that is entirely > solar powered, is still the single most "inefficient" item > anyone could own because of how much energy & GHG emissions > it takes to extract the materials to make the care, the > energy used to produce the car, the energy,materials and > space used to run the cars & park the cars, the energy to > make the cement, etc. all for a vehicle that uses 90% of > whatever form of energy it has to move the vehicle (based on > weight) not the people inside, especially since 90% of the > time people drive by themselves) > > then there are the facts on the ground of how green cars > right now are draining resources, money (including $millions > in public monies) from building local economies so people > would not have to go that far from where they live, making > more sidewalks for people to walk, building cycle tracks to > ride bikes safely in cities and funding public transit, > which has received $0 U.S. federal in operations funding > since 1997. > > right now there are thousands of charging stations for > people's private cars being built across the U.S. that we > are paying for as taxpayers and that pose a real risk and > danger to a poorly regulated and maintained electric grid, > especially during hot summer days > > A 2008 University of Minnesota study and others show that if > all cars in Amerika were plug-in hybrids, CO2 emissions > would increase 10% due to coal burning power plants being at > the other end of the plug 50% of the time > > Yes, some of what Lovins says in his letter responding to > the New Yorker article is correct: when he talks about > energy use in a house probably not getting overcome by a > rebound or Jevon's Paradox, which would mean people would > turn up the thermostat so much in the winter as to cancel > out the increases in efficiency or turn it down in the > summer. > > However, even here he is only half right or less. > > The vast majority of decreased energy use in a new or > retrofitted "weatherized" building is NOT primarily because > of efficiency, it is because of conservation > > When Lovins proudly proclaims to Amy Goodman and other > worldly admirers that he almost never has to artificially > heat his house on the mountain it is because it is > super-insulated which conserves energy (windows in almost > all cases are secondary to air sealing and insulation) and > things like passive solar energy > > Since most of us live in houses or work in buildings that > are not quite like Avery's what we need to do is to develop > a fair, just and equitable weatherization standard and mass > movement to weatherize every building in the US by > 2020. This could potentially decrease energy use & CO2 > emissions by 30% primarily through energy conservation, not > energy efficiency. i.e. even if you have to replace your > heater with a more "efficient" one. > > There is a lot more to talk about but, > > the bottom line is the Jevons Paradox is alive & will > continue to be so until capitalism is done away with > > if you have not yet had the opportunity to read the Bellamy > article from the November, 2010 MR here is a section > relevant to this discussion and a link to the entire > article: > > http://www.monthlyreview.org/101101foster-clark-york.php > > "The Fallacy of Dematerialization > The Jevons Paradox is the product of a capitalist economic > system that is unable to conserve on a macro scale, geared, > as it is, to maximizing the throughput of energy and > materials from resource tap to final waste sink. Energy > savings in such a system tend to be used as a means for > further development of the economic order, generating what > Alfred Lotka called the "maximum energy flux," rather than > minimum energy production.34 The deemphasis on absolute (as > opposed to relative) energy conservation is built into the > nature and logic of capitalism as a system unreservedly > devoted to the gods of production and profit. As Marx put > it: "Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the > prophets!"35 > > > SYSTEM (like in the Capitalist System) CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE CHANGE! > > > > On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Matt Leonard wrote: > > > It seems that every few months, a journalist "discovers" > > Jevon's Paradox, and reports on it as if it is a > > breakthrough angle that takes the air (no pun intended) > > out of climate and efficiency advocates. > > > > And this isn't he first time the Breakthrough Institute > > has inserted themselves into the debate - with little to > > substantiate their positions. See a wonderful debunking > > from Climate Progress at: > > > http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/15/the-breakthrough-institute-attack-energy-efficiency-clean-energy-backfire-rebound-effect/ > > > > > Also, Amory Lovins at Rocky Mountain Institute has done a > > great page with various viewpoints on the matter outlined > > at:http://www.rmi.org/rmi/jevonsparadox > > > > -Matt > > > > On 3/9/2011 6:24 AM, Jerome Whitington wrote: > >> > >> Global Climate Action May Cut 2050 Oil Prices to $69, EU Says > >> 2011-03-08 16:27:41.60 GMT > >> > >> > >> By Mathew Carr > >> March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Global climate action may cut the > >> price of oil by 2050 because of lower demand, according to > >> modeling carried out by the European Union. > >> Oil prices may fall to $69 a barrel because of worldwide > >> climate protection, compared with $138 a barrel under a baseline > >> scenario with limited greenhouse-gas reduction, the EU said > >> today in a plan to curb emissions through 2050. > >> "Taking action on climate change has significant > >> implications for the EU fossil fuel imports and the related > >> bill," according to the document. "The global-action scenario > >> results in 51 percent lower oil consumption than the baseline > >> level in 2050." > >> > >> March 7, 2011 > >> When Energy Efficiency Sullies the Environment > >> By JOHN TIERNEY, NY Times > >> For the sake of a cleaner planet, should Americans wear dirtier clothes? > >> > >> This is not a simple question, but then, nothing about > >> dirty laundry is simple anymore. We've come far since the > >> carefree days of 1996, when Consumer Reports tested some > >> midpriced top-loaders and reported that "any washing > >> machine will get clothes clean." > >> > >> In this year's report, no top-loading machine got top > >> marks for cleaning. The best performers were > >> front-loaders costing on average more than $1,000. Even > >> after adjusting for inflation, that's still $350 more > >> than the top-loaders of 1996. > >> > >> What happened to yesterday's top-loaders? To comply with > >> federal energy-efficiency requirements, manufacturers > >> made changes like reducing the quantity of hot water. The > >> result was a bunch of what Consumer Reports called > >> "washday wash-outs," which left some clothes "nearly as > >> stained after washing as they were when we put them in." > >> > >> Now, you might think that dirtier clothes are a small > >> price to pay to save the planet. Energy-efficiency > >> standards have been embraced by politicians of both > >> parties as one of the easiest ways to combat global > >> warming. Making appliances, cars, buildings and factories > >> more efficient is called the "low-hanging fruit" of > >> strategies to cut greenhouse emissions. > >> > >> But a growing number of economists say that the > >> environmental benefits of energy efficiency have been > >> oversold. Paradoxically, there could even be more > >> emissions as a result of some improvements in energy > >> efficiency, these economists say. > >> > >> The problem is known as the energy rebound effect. While > >> there's no doubt that fuel-efficient cars burn less > >> gasoline per mile, the lower cost at the pump tends to > >> encourage extra driving. There's also an indirect rebound > >> effect as drivers use the money they save on gasoline to > >> buy other things that produce greenhouse emissions, like > >> new electronic gadgets or vacation trips on fuel-burning > >> planes. > >> > >> Some of the biggest rebound effects occur when new > >> economic activity results from energy-efficient > >> technologies that reduce the cost of making products like > >> steel or generating electricity. In some cases, the > >> overall result can be what's called "backfire": more > >> energy use than would have occurred without the improved > >> efficiency. > >> > >> Another term for backfire is the Jevons Paradox, named > >> after a 19th-century British economist who observed that > >> while the steam engine extracted energy more efficiently > >> from coal, it also stimulated so much economic growth > >> that coal consumption increased. That paradox was mostly > >> ignored by modern environmentalists, who have argued that > >> rebound effects are much smaller today. > >> > >> But economists keep finding contrary evidence. When > >> Britain's UK Energy Research Center reviewed more than > >> 500 studies on the subject, it rejected the assumption > >> that rebound effects were small enough to be > >> disregarded. The author of the 2007 report, Steve > >> Sorrell, noted that these effects could, in some > >> circumstances, "potentially increase energy consumption > >> in the long term." > >> > >> A similar conclusion comes from a survey of the > >> literature published last month by the Breakthrough > >> Institute, an American research group that studies ways > >> to slow global warming. Its authors, Jesse Jenkins, Ted > >> Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, warn that "rebound > >> effects are real and significant," and could sometimes > >> erode all the expected reductions in emissions. > >> > >> "Efficiency advocates try to distract attention from the > >> rebound effect by saying that nobody will vacuum more > >> because their vacuum cleaner is more efficient," > >> Mr. Shellenberger said. "But this misses the picture at > >> the macro and global level, particularly when you > >> consider all the energy that is used in manufacturing > >> products and producing usable energy like electricity and > >> gasoline from coal and oil. When you increase the > >> efficiency of a steel plant in China, you'll likely see > >> more steel production and thus more energy consumption." > >> > >> Consider what's happened with lighting over the past > >> three centuries. As people have switched from candles to > >> oil-powered lamps to incandescent bulbs and beyond, the > >> amount of energy needed to produce a unit of light has > >> plummeted. Yet people have found so many new places to > >> light that today we spend the same proportion of our > >> income on light as our much poorer ancestors did in 1700, > >> according to an analysis published last year in The > >> Journal of Physics by researchers led by Jeff Tsao of > >> Sandia National Laboratories. > >> > >> "The implications of this research are important for > >> those who care about global warming," said Harry > >> Saunders, a co-author of the article. "Many have come to > >> believe that new, highly-efficient solid-state lighting > >> -- generally LED technology, like that used on the > >> displays of stereo consoles, microwaves and digital > >> clocks -- will result in reduced energy consumption. We > >> find the opposite is true." > >> > >> These new lights, though, produce lots of other benefits, > >> just as many other improvements in energy efficiency > >> contribute to overall welfare by lowering costs and > >> spurring economic growth. In the long run, that economic > >> growth may spur innovative new technologies for reducing > >> greenhouse emissions and lowering levels of carbon > >> dioxide. > >> > >> But if your immediate goal is to reduce greenhouse > >> emissions, then it seems risky to count on reaching it by > >> improving energy efficiency. To economists worried about > >> rebound effects, it makes more sense to look for new > >> carbon-free sources of energy, or to impose a direct > >> penalty for emissions, like a tax on energy generated > >> from fossil fuels. Whereas people respond to more > >> fuel-efficient cars by driving more and buying other > >> products, they respond to a gasoline tax simply by > >> driving less. > >> > >> A visible tax, of course, is not popular, which is one > >> reason that politicians prefer to stress energy > >> efficiency. The costs and other trade-offs of energy > >> efficiency are often conveniently hidden from view, and > >> the prospect of using less energy appeals to the thrifty > >> instincts of consumers as well as to the moral > >> sensibilities of environmentalists. > >> > >> But if the benefits of energy efficiency have been > >> oversold, then that's more reason to consider > >> alternatives like a carbon tax, and to look more > >> carefully at the hidden costs and trade-offs involved in > >> setting rigid standards for efficiency. Unlike a carbon > >> tax, which gives consumers and manufacturers an incentive > >> to look for smart ways to save energy, a mandated > >> standard of efficiency can reduce flexibility and force > >> people into choices they wouldn't ordinarily make -- > >> including ones with consequences more serious than dirty > >> clothes. > >> > >> Because of the smaller and consequently less safe cars > >> built to meet federal fuel-efficiency standards starting > >> in the 1980s, there were about 2,000 additional deaths on > >> the highway every year, according to the National > >> Research Council. And now the federal government is > >> imposing even more stringent standards, with little > >> objection except from a few critics like Sam Kazman of > >> the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a > >> free-market-oriented nonprofit research group. > >> > >> "Efficiency mandates have become feel-good mantras that > >> politicians invoke," Mr. Kazman said. "The results of > >> these mandates have ranged from costly fiascos, such as > >> once-dependable top-loading washers that no longer wash, > >> to higher fatalities in cars downsized by fuel-efficiency > >> rules. If the technologies were so good, they wouldn't > >> need to be imposed on us by law." > >> > >> No matter what laws are enacted, people are going to find > >> ways to use energy more efficiently -- that's the story > >> of civilization. But don't count on them using less > >> energy, no matter how dirty their clothes get. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jerome Whitington > >> Anthropology, UC Berkeley PhD 2008 > >> > >> Climate Justice Research Project > >> Dartmouth College > >> > >> +1 415 763 8605 > >> -- > > Howard Ehrman, MD, MPH > > Assistant Professor > University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) > > College of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine > > School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and > Occupational Health Sciences > > Contact Information: > > email: [email protected] > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
