Energy Efficiency ‘Not Enough’ to Combat Climate Change

Eagleye Blog ^ | February 13, 2013 | Bethany Stotts

[eagleye85]

A recent article in the Washington Post exposes once again what climate change skeptics already know: the green movement is designed to lower living standards, not just make living more carbon efficient.

“One of President Obama’s goals in his State of the Union address was to make American homes twice as energy-efficient by 2030,” writes Brad Plumer for the Washington Post today. “But would that actually curtail overall energy use and reduce U.S. carbon emissions? That’s a trickier question.”

“A second way to look at this is that as Americans get richer, we’re inevitably going to want bigger homes and purchase more gadgets, no matter what,” reports Plumer. “Improvements in energy efficiency can ensure that our energy needs don’t explode as we get wealthier. That seems to be happening in the United States.”

“Americans today have larger homes and more appliances while using roughly the same amount of energy as they used to” (emphasis added). Another aspect is the “rebound effect,” Plumer explains: “As televisions and refrigerators become more energy-efficient — thanks in part to government standards — they become cheaper to operate, and Americans use more of them. If it doesn’t cost much to run an air conditioner, why not install two of them? Or three?”

Thus, he concludes, to fight climate change one must do more than be efficient. After all, if we are more energy efficient, then we can buy more stuff, right? “Long story short: Higher energy efficiency is a boon for consumer welfare,” writes Plumer. “[…] What’s more, boosting energy productivity will almost certainly be necessary for the United States to cut its carbon emissions and tackle climate change. But efficiency by itself likely won’t be sufficient” (emphasis added).

Instead, we should be able to buy less stuff in the name of climate change; this is why people often argue that climate change regulation is a method contrived to decrease wealth. Or, as Florida Senator Marco Rubio said today, climate change regulation will “devastate” the economy.

[adorno]

A second way to look at this is that as Americans get richer, we’re inevitably going to want bigger homes and purchase more gadgets

Okay, where is that America they're talking about? Who's getting richer and how do I get in on the action?

With the new Socialist States of America, the likelihood of people getting richer, is about as equal as the chances that people had in the old USSR.

However, what's the deal with the choice of the word, "richer"? Whatever happened to the idea of getting rich to begin with, and then working on getting richer? The article makes it seem as if Americans are all rich already.

[American in Israel]

Communism now has a green flag. But the blood it will shed, will still run red.

[American in Israel]

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Aerogel is a magnificent substance, one of the lightest known solids, first invented in 1931. It is amazing as an insulator, a 3mm sheet insulating as much as several feet of fiberglass. Typically from -100C to 1500C or so.

But until recently it was both very expensive and far too brittle.

However, recent innovations now result in flexible, thin sheet aerogel at much less cost. Only now entering mass production, the demand for it is so great little will be available for public sale for some time.

And yet, once it is available, it could change everything.

Insulating a refrigerator or oven with it, and it uses a fraction of the energy it now uses after it reaches temperature. Insulate a house with it, and be it cold or hot outside, energy consumption plummets.

[EdReform]

“A second way to look at this is that as Americans get richer, we’re inevitably going to want bigger homes and purchase more gadgets, no matter what,” reports Plumer.

Rich Americans, like Al "King of Green" Gore...

[pallis]

Everyone in our household is now limited to one fart per day, to not exceed a duration of three seconds. We are doing our part to stop global warming.

[penelopesire]

As a menopausal woman, I am saying right here that they will have to pry my thermostat control from my cold dead hands.....lol. Molon Labe!

[Road Glide]

“Energy Efficiency ‘Not Enough’ to Combat Climate Change…”

Of course not. The only effective means of “combating” climate change will be to ban the use of energy in all its forms.

Didn’t you already know that?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Unless we can move the earth closer to the sun in the next few thousand years, the glaciers are rolling in no matter what we do.

[Rocky]

You’re not a true “green” unless you hate people and want to see most people on the earth die. Because humans are a blight on this beautiful planet, and it would be a truly enjoyable place if there were no humans here to enjoy it. Or something like that.

[Cvengr]

Just not efficient enough. Now about that pipe....