[staringclown]

Quote

The idea that improving efficiency makes sustainability problems worse seems counter-intuitive. But what if aiming to do more with less is actually doing the wrong thing right? If sustainability is our concern, this is almost always the case.

Doing more with less means we end up doing so much more that as a society we ultimately end up using more overall. This is called the Jevons Effect. It has been known for at least 147 years, though of course not commonly. If it was, we might be living sustainably by now. Recently, however, the problem of efficiency has been thrust back into the spotlight.

Quote

This has also been called the Rebound Effect, but it is more pernicious than that. Owen suggests it might be better termed the Chain Effect. As we improve efficiency in one thing, say the fridge, its reduced costs make it accessible to more of us. And we don’t just go on to use bigger fridges and more of them (developing ideas like bar fridges, meat fridges etc.), we create and expand related spin-off cooling technologies, industries and activities. Air conditioning has become a “must”, we expect access to food from all over the world any time of year, and see refrigerated spaces in supermarkets take up increasing amounts of space as our demand for chilled goods increases. All that also conveys the sense that the food we buy will last longer than it does, resulting in increasingly excessive food consumption, and food waste (4 million tons a year in Australia alone). Of course, not only is the food wasted, so too is the energy used to produce, transport, buy, store, and dispose of it.

Edit: Whoops!

Our bloated cult of efficiency: doing the wrong thing right

[Mr Medved]

Link?

[staringclown]

Mr Medved, on 06 May 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

Link?

Sorry M.

Our bloated cult of efficiency: doing the wrong thing right

[tom]

This is what syd3000 has always said.

I agreee with it but this is where taxing negative externalities can assist. Sure we can have more free time and then tax us doing things that are not sustainable.

I for one am not going to agree to being thrust back 50 years into the past just so I make less impact on the environment. There has to be a better way.

My concern is governments just do not get it right. I could imagine them taxing fishing licences to teh point they are so expensive no one fishes etc and yet when I go to the shop and buy a fish which has had more of an impact on teh environment? The trawler with teh waste along the distribution chain or me pulling out exactly what I need?

[Solomon]

tom, on 06 May 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

I for one am not going to agree to being thrust back 50 years into the past just so I make less impact on the environment. There has to be a better way.

My concern is governments just do not get it right. I could imagine them taxing fishing licences to teh point they are so expensive no one fishes etc and yet when I go to the shop and buy a fish which has had more of an impact on teh environment? The trawler with teh waste along the distribution chain or me pulling out exactly what I need?

This is the fascinating aspect of this issue.
We want a world like it was 50 years ago, but we don't want to go back to the lifestyle of that era.
Imagine catching the horses to go into town for the day shopping!!

Tom,
I can agree with your argument about fishing to a point.
You see, currently not everyone goes fishing. Imagine that every person in Australia was fishing.
I imagine also you might grow your own potatoes and vegies. But have you ever tried to grow enough to be totally self-sufficient. It exceeds the back-yard plot.
And don't get me started on growing your own beef, pork and lamb. You would need at least 7 - 10 hectares of land to provide for a small family.
Also are you going to grow your own sugar cane, and all the external requirements needed to manufacture sugar.
There are economies of scale that simply wouldn't add up. What about salt? Or coffee? etc, etc.

We cannot go back any longer.
Not unless there is a major reduction in population, or a complete and utterly total change in land ownership and controls.
I should also add, that most people have lost the skills necessary to live totally self-sufficiently or even semi-sufficiently.
We've lost all those skills that enabled our ancestors to virtually live off the land.

What is the answer? I seriously do not know.
I seriously wonder about the economies of scale, and what that will mean going forward.
Thanks for your post.

This post has been edited by Solomon: 06 May 2012 - 08:03 AM

[staringclown]

I read the article as recognising false economies and using that information to form more effective policy. We can make technologies efficient and that's a good thing. The article to me suggests that we are treating the symptoms and not the real cause. The real cause being expensive energy. We can't go backwards to some mythical golden age when we used the same inputs as outputs. It doesn't exist and never existed. We can investigate with great vigour alternate sources of energy however. Medveds photosynthetic solution. Hell,nuclear fusion hydrogen cracking power. The first one to solve the clean energy problem will inherit the earth. I am keeping a few speculative dollars aside for the opportunities. A chance to bet on a roughie.