Re: Feedback on Feedback

[James Kempf]

Mark:

 

>Comment PJ3 is:
>"This assumes that
>energy intensity remains constant in the
>economy, which isn't likely. With new
>CAFE standards making cars more
>efficient over this period, more efficient
>appliances, California efficiency
>measures coming into effect, etc., I would
>guess that per capita energy consumption
>will be declining over this period. I'm
>guessing is this is an over estimate."

 

>I disagree.  Energy intensity per dollar
>has fallen in the past and is likely
>to decline somewhat further, but if incomes
>rise, they are likely to offset much or all of
>that decline, so energey intensity PER PERSON 

>(which is that commenter PJ was referring to) could

>be flat or increase. 

 

I put in the following footnote:

 

          These calculations assume that energy intensity, i.e. amount of energy used per person per year, remains constant in the economy. With new CAFE standards making cars more efficient over this period, more efficient appliances, California conservation measures coming into effect, etc., per capita energy consumption may decline over this period.

 

which doesn't say anything about it being an overestimate or underestimate. The calculations already assume it will be flat, which seems to me the most prudent course. I guess we could put in "x percentiles" to indicate what would happen if energy intensity declined or increased, but that seems unnecessary.

 

>"Comment [PJ4]: Keep in mind that

>efficiency measures always pay back and

>therefore have a negative cost."

 

>ALWAYS?  They don't ALWAYS pay back. 
>Well-chosen ones pay back.

 

I'll change the wording to "Well-chosen efficiency measures always pay back..."

 

------------------------------------------
>There are a couple of "deletions" that are
>incorrect.  For example, someone "corrected"
>the spelling of "serious" to "serous".

>As another example, someone "corrected"
>"impossible" to "possible".  The reversed wording
>is not correct.  (Since the person "correcting"
>the wording obviously didn't understand the
>sentence, we might take the change as a hint that
>we re-word the sentence to make it more clear.)

 

I ignored these, since they looked to me like a simple case of accidental keyboard slips in the Word document. The Climate Group wasn't supposed to do copyediting anyway, that's the next step (with Julie).

 

------------------------------------------
>PJ8: The commenter seems to think that composting
>is done primarily or solely to provide fuel for
>electricity production.  This is not correct. 
>Compost is used as fertilizer. 
-------------------------------------------

>So far, I'm not impressed with The Climate Group's feedback. 

 

I read both sets of comments to the Baseline report and I think Reid's comments were better. Jessup's had a lot of unsubstatiated opinions in them. Some of Reid's were really good, providing a couple other sources for the City to go to when they continue the measurement process, some well considered viewpoints that we didn't quite catch,  etc.. I only read the comments on the Baseline report, though. From Janis' email, the comments on the Waste report seemed a little more questionable.

 

          jak