<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
This chain makes me think about something I had taken for granted
long ago.<br>
<br>
Taking a step back...what does it mean that we use electrical
devices? We are trying to eliminate work, physical labor. We are
trying to speed processes. So, I wonder if energy intensity will
not be monotonic rising until the globe is electric. In other
words, biology has time-function limits, electronics do not,
effectively for our experience. <br>
<br>
So, plan on seeing intensity indices (kWh/person) rise continuously
no matter what anyone does until we switch to a different grid
(first we had thermal (fire), then mechanical analog (gearworks),
then EMag/digital (electric), etc.). Perhaps the issue is simply
this - will we move to pro-biological (pro-environment) generation
fast enough and will we control waste heat well enough before we
create food/water shortages...because we'll be in a global war over
food and water long before the "death" of the planet. <br>
<br>
Just a thought.<br>
<br>
Brian<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/23/10 8:47 PM, Jason Holstine wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C8C16D45.AF34%25jason@amicusgreen.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>Re: [Greenbuilding] reduced energy use in USA</title>
<span>This sounds overly positive compared to other numbers I’ve
heard in the last 2 years. Emissions are down—I’ve heard
generally around 4% year over year, and it’s mostly from
industrial capacity reduction (recession). But the per capita
could be well improved. Our economy is plenty more efficient
than it was in the 70s—I’ve seen numerous studies about it but
can’t quote them off-hand. And given our population growth
trends over 40 years, the per capita numbers could skew
positive.<br>
<br>
You’d like to think this is inherently b/c people have gotten
on board—and as Energy Star and other programs have matured this
last decade, we’ll see nice improvements in per capita numbers
this coming decade--but unfortunately it’ll be primarily b/c of
the recession. Not only jobs, but pollution is also offshoring.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 9/23/10 8:30 PM, "Reuben Deumling" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="9watts@gmail.com">9watts@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</span>
<blockquote> <span>I find this extremely unlikely. <br>
But it is also worth noting that carbon emissions (an absolute
parameter) is quite different than carbon intensity (a
relative parameter if there ever was one). <br>
The per capita energy consumption (a third slice through this
issue) is also not lower now than it's been since 1970. None
of these numbers sound right to me and should be easily shown
to be bunk.<br>
<br>
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Vadurro, Rob, EMNRD <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="rob.vadurro@state.nm.us">rob.vadurro@state.nm.us</a>>
wrote:<br>
</span>
<blockquote> <span>I just read this from Rob Watson’s <i>GreenerBuildings
News</i>, reporting from the Clinton Global Initiative
confab:<br>
<br>
</span> <span>There are some weakly positive signs on the
carbon emissions front that show U.S. carbon emissions in
2009 down to 1997 levels. Clearly, the economic downturn
contributed to this, but U.S. energy consumption per capita
is lower than it's been since 1970, and the energy and
carbon intensity of the U.S. economy is the lowest it has
been since modern records have been kept.<br>
<br>
</span> <span>If this is true, it would seem more than
“weakly positive” (at least to me). Can anyone verify these
statements?<br>
<br>
<br>
</span> </blockquote>
<span><br>
<br>
</span> <span>_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="Greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
</span> </blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org">Greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>