[Greenbuilding] Energy Star Clothes Dryers Program Launch

[Reuben Deumling]

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, David Bergman <bergman at cyberg.com> wrote:

>  I think Jevon's Paradox gets overquoted and overestimated as an
> anti-efficiency tactic. While there's no doubt it exists to a degree, I
> believe most studies have shown that the increases in usage are not larger
> than the gains in efficiency.
>
> I know I've read several such articles recently, but can't put my finger
> on them. Anyone recall?
>
> There have been quite a few: David Owen in the New Yorker (2010) & the
Breakthrough Institute (2011).

These articles have enraged my energy efficiency advocate friends, because
they feel the authors don't understand the rebound effect, misuse the term,
etc. But the larger point, and the reason this term has gained a certain
amount of currency--despite having been buried by energy efficiency
champions many times--is that the boosters of energy efficiency who so
eagerly promise that EE will avert climate change, help us meet our policy
targets, etc. have never deigned to explain to the non-expert how it is
that energy consumption, and GHG emissions keep rising despite
unprecedented amounts of money spent on EE.
The rebound effect keeps getting dug up because it speaks to the very
persistent misgivings many people have about these inflated claims. We've
been pursuing EE for going on 30 years, 20 if you want to be conservative
about it, and what have we gotten for it? More CO2 emissions, higher per
capita consumption of electricity, gasoline, & natural gas. Is it any
wonder that Jevons gets to live another day?

The tragedy is that the EE advocates' only counter argument is to angrily
denounce their critics for failing to understand Jevons or the rebound
effect. But they never address the underlying issue, and/or concede how
over-selling their favorite strategy when it comes to actually reducing
energy consumption or GHG emissions has led to these explorations of how we
can have energy efficiency and growth in energy consumption at the same
time.


> And I think a major exception cited is televisions, where they've become
> more energy-efficient but they've also gotten much larger. But you can
> argue that there are two separate factors at work there. Similarly for
> refrigerators.
>

The point I'd make is that the two are not necessarily separate. Bigger
fridges and bigger TVs are not so easily separated from the energy
efficiency efforts that rescue large fridges and large TVs from the
erstwhile scorn of energy authorities, by slapping endorsement labels on
them.

It is no accident that the endorsement label programs (Energy Star above
all) but also rebates and related efforts focus on the largest and most
lavish versions of all products so designated. The point is to make middle
class consumers feel better about buying the high end, well appointed
goodies. You won't see an Energy Star label on a small modest fridge or a
black and white TV (to pick two extremes that will consume less energy than
the models with the labels).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120730/1ec32246/attachment.html>