[All] Overinvesting in energy efficiency, on purpose

[Peter Kofler]

Excellent and thought-provoking column by David Roberts over at Grist:
 http://grist.org/energy-efficiency/overinvesting-in-energy-efficiency-on-purpose/ 
arguing the somewhat counterintuitive case for radical energy efficiency improvements, as opposed to widespread shallow (but economically optimal) energy efficiency improvements.
Some of the comment responses to the column are  extremely insightful, in particular the following, which I've copied below. If you understand nothing else about energy transition away from a non-renewable based economy in a complex society, it would be worthwhile to understand the following:
This makes perfect sense, and echoes something that
I have long believed.



Energy efficiency (or resource efficiency in general) is great, but I see a
peril in it that goes beyond the rebound effect.  As someone who
specializes in building energy efficiency (a cost-driven market if ever there
was one) this is something I worry about a lot.



Ultimately, our economies and infrastructure will follow one of two paths.
 The regenerative path is the one we all want, where our footprint
decreases radically and ultimately becomes a positive force for the health of
the Earth.



The other path is the path of depletion, decline and catabolic collapse.
 The end state of this process looks pretty similar regardless of how you
get there (a reversion to pre-Industrial Revolution technology and population
levels) but there are many possible paths.



Basically, catabolic collapse happens when we can no longer "cover our
nut" - when we lack the resources to support maintenance on the
infrastructure that we use in order to procure resources. 



And this is the potential danger of widespread but shallow (i.e. economically optimal)
energy efficiency, when coupled with the persistence of the growth paradigm:
Economically optimal energy efficiency means saving energy exactly as
much as is profitable (in the short term) and no more.  Growth paradigm
means maximizing ROI, which (absent radical efficiency) means continuing to
push the maximum energy/resource throughput higher whenever possible.



All else being equal, a depletionary economy that has implemented economically
optimal efficiency will hit the point of catabolic collapse much
later than one which has not pursued efficiency.  The efficient economy
has reduced their input per unit output, and this almost always includes a
reduction in overhead/maintenance.  This means that (in most cases) they
can continue to function (and thus perpetuate depletion) with a much smaller
resource base than the inefficient economy.



This is all well and good IF the economy is in the process of retooling to stop
depleting and become actually sustainable (i.e. regenerative).  It buys us
time.  However, if the economy refuses to change its underlying nature -
and in particular, refuses to get over the addiction to growth - then all this
improved efficiency does is put off the inevitable failure.  And, because
the efficient economy fails later and continues to function for longer, it is
able to get further down the resource depletion curve before it all falls apart
(at which point, depletion stops or greatly slows; there's a limit to the
damage humans can do without industrialization backing their play).  This
means that, when civilization rises again, it will have many fewer readily
available resources to access, delaying or preventing a resurgence.  (This
is particularly true with energy.  The only reason we can afford to drill
for oil in deep water is because, 200 years ago, someone found oil pooling
on the ground in Pennsylvania.  We bootstrapped our industrial
metabolism from there.)

 

The upshot is that radical efficiency
is not just better than marginal efficiency.  It is profoundly different, and
possibly of an entirely different nature.  Radical efficiency will be
harder in the short term, but can lead to a regenerative future for humanity.
 Marginal
efficiency won't get us there, and will likely damage our prospects for a post
collapse recovery, because by design it rides the depletion curve into the
ground.  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20120228/db6333e0/attachment.html>