comments on your group's presentation
Julie Lovins
I thought this was an admirable presentation (though I agree with the
various comments from the dais). But I do have qualms about several of
the views expressed in the general area of "efficiency". I'm not in a
position to try to refute anything rigorously, at the moment, but want to
suggest that you make VERY sure you have solid data to back up what I
understood to be the assertions, if I got them correctly.
1. It does not ring true that "97% of technological improvements allowing
greater fuel efficiency have been used to increase horsepower" (is that
about what you said?). This is, alas and alack, well known to be what
Detroit has done. And I believe that some Japanese models have gone the
same way. But in terms of the NUMBER OF VEHICLES ACTUALLY SOLD, as
opposed to the number of new models created in this mode (some of which
have not sold well!), the use of hybrid gas-electric engines, for example,
has had results that do not back up this assertion. I have heard rumors
that 2009 models will go further in the direction of fuel efficiency,
which people really want now, as opposed to horsepower.
2. I believe that the greatest gains from the
impossible-to-beat-competitively-priced efficiency and conservation
options available may come in industry and commerce, which are not as
transparent to most of us as are the actions of private residents. And
these are MAJOR gains, definitely being noticed by the commercial sector.
Their results are not exactly squandered...though as they go to the bottom
line, they may be used to make products cheaper (and therefore more of
them may be bought), and they may go to stockholders, who may thereby buy
more things. Nevertheless, are there really data to show that these
side-effects produce AS MUCH OR MORE GHG than would occur without the
efficiencies?
I have a similar question about purely private-resident energy
efficiency/conservation improvements. Do you have evidence that as
people's electric bills go down, they push them back up to where they
were, by getting more stuff to use electricity, or spend the "extra" money
on non-essential goods that have a similar effect? That all or most of
the gains are really lost? I would guess that some of them are, but not
nearly all.
Julie
Mark Gilkey
NARRATOR: Over several decades, automotive engineers at Sloan and other labs around the world have increased engine efficiency by 30 percent.JOHN HEYWOOD: Engines and transmissions have got steadily more efficient, year by year by year by year by year. So it's better technology. Then the question is: "What do we do with these more powerful and more efficient engines?" We've put them into increasing vehicle performance so our vehicles accelerate faster, more aggressively, and we've put them into larger vehicles, heavier vehicles. ... [W]e haven't gained. We've sort of stood still.
citing a recent study by CIBC World markets. The article was posted
approximately 2007-11-28
resources, such as oil and copper, and that this is unsustainable.
And most people know that we are using many renewable resources
(such as lumber [footnote 1] and groundwater [Footnote 1B]) much faster than
we renew them. Yet few politicians or consumers worry that
we will face a resource shortage in the future. Some
economists, such as Julian Simon, go so far as to claim that
resources, including energy, are infinite, [footnote #10] -- in
direct contradiction to the laws of physics [footnote 10.2].
no matter how unsustainable our current economic system is,
technology will improve fast enough to make our economic
system sustainable. In other words, technology will eliminate
the gap between what we consume and what we sustainably produce.
declared at a car show that we don't need to give up large,
high-powered cars to slow global warming; we merely
need to wait for technology to solve the problem.
improves, our economy should be getting more sustainable every
year, either by consuming less or by producing more (sustainably).
technology, our economy is becoming LESS sustainable, not
more sustainable.
world's economies entered "ecological overshoot" (i.e. our
economies are no longer sustainable), growing from
approximately 80% of the long-term
sustainable level to approximately 120% of the sustainable
level. [footnote 8, 11] Technology is not solving this problem;
the high-tech countries, such as the U.S. and most European countries,
are increasing their overshoot even faster than the world average.
continue to rise. 30 years ago, the U.S. imported 50%
of the oil it needed; today it imports 60%.
Technology has grown, but population and per-capita
consumption have grown at a faster rate. [footnote 6]
food-producing states, groundwater is pumped out much faster than
it is replaced. Even states with high rainfall, such as Florida,
face water shortages. [footnote 3] And demand continues to rise
while supply is falling. The same problems exist worldwide.
[footnote 12]
created [footnote 4], and despite improved soil conservation
techniques in some areas, the global problem is
getting worse, not better. [footnote 5]
The reason is that when we get new technology, we typically do
not use it to narrow the gap between consumption and sustainable
production -- we use technology to consume more, not less.
have increased engine efficiency by 30%. 29/30ths of that
was used to make engines more powerful, and only 1/30
to improve gas mileage. In addition, the average number
of miles driven per person rose by 20% over the last
30-40 years. And U.S. population rose by more than
40% over the same period of time. As a result, despite
impressive technological improvements in automobile
engine design, we are burning more gasoline than ever.
yet each year we consume more jet fuel as population and
per-capita travel increase. [Footnote 7.] (Remember
that the next time your travel company calls a vacation
"eco-tourism".)
electricity per calculation than my previous one. However,
the higher speed, larger screen, and increased memory more
than compensate for higher efficiency -- my current laptop
uses 3 times as much electricity as my old one.
"paperless office". But improvements in computer
technology were paired with improvements in printer
technology, and Americans use more paper than ever.
not exceptional. In the overall U.S. economy, we have
improved energy efficiency greatly, yet per-capita consumption
has increased. The same trend exists in most or all
industrialized countries. [footnote 13] In some countries,
such as the U.S., population growth has exacerbated the
problem still further.
study even called the trend "the efficiency paradox" -- that
as we save money by conserving energy, we use that additional
available income to buy more goods and services, ultimately
using as much energy as before we conserved. [footnote 13]
As we get richer, we can more easily afford to save a
larger portion of our income. Yet we do the opposite.
Over the last few decades, Americans have saved less and
less of their income. Last year (2006), Americans
actually spent more than 100% of their take-home pay.
more rather than less, and therefore we become less sustainable.
from ourselves. No technology can prevent a resource crunch
as long as we use technology to consume more, rather than less.
Mark Gilkey
505 Cypress Point Drive #96
Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 823-4480 (cell) (No Telemarketing!)
uced...@cs.com
FOOTNOTES:
1) Forest area decreased 9% between 1990-2000
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y0900E/y0900e05.htm
Table 6.
under the "business as usual" scenario, groundwater
pumping will increase between now and 2025 (which
is as far into the future as the study looked).
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/fpr/fprwater2025.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0817/p03s01-ussc.html
"soil erosion seems to be getting worse".
http://www.unfpa.org/intercenter/food/pushing.htm
WILKINSON, Bruce H., Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University,
and MCELROY, Brandon J., Department of Geological Sciences,
University of Texas, Austin,
indicates that far more than half of this is due to human
population growth driving up the amount of land that we farm.
Our technological improvements in food production per acre have
not kept up with population growth, and as a result we
continue to increase the number of acres under cultivation.
Since almost all of the best farmland has been used up,
new production generally comes from areas with steeper slopes
or other factors that make them more vulnerable to erosion.
nearly five times faster than energy use, according to the
federal Department of Energy. While gross domestic product (GDP)
more than doubled over the past 20 years, energy use rose
just 26 percent."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0529/p2s1.html
in the summer of 2008, will be made of lighter composite
materials and employ other fuel-saving measures. But
these improvements won't be nearly enough to offset the
predicted increase in air travel (including air freight)."
at best, while the number of passenger kilometers is growing
at 5 or 6 percent." Peter Lockley, quoted in
Christian Science Monitor August 17, 2007 p. 5
a clear pattern emerges... [the ecological impact] is growing at a rate
proportional to their wealth. Developed countries in particular have
done very little to reduce their impact."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/04/pip.populationquestion/index.html
neither be created nor destroyed; there is a finite amount of
matter and energy in the universe, and that is all that there will
ever be.
highly optimistic, since we continue to consume non-renewable resources,
and the ratio of amount consumed to the amount sustainably consumable
is effectively infinite.
by all users grows, groundwater is being depleted, other water ecosystems are becoming
polluted and degraded, and developing new sources of water is getting more costly."
and Sarah A.Cline, published by the International Food Policy
Research Institute and the International Water Management Institute.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2749536620071127)
citing a recent study by CIBC World markets. The article was posted
approximately 2007-11-28
Julie Lovins
Mark--
Thanks very much for the additional info. I agree with the last sentence
you quoted.
For the record, I don't necessarily agree that, for example, being a
professor at MIT makes one credible. (There's another professor at MIT
who's been going around denying global warming.)
That said, the Heywood quote does not address the specific point I raised;
if he's considering only American cars, I agree with him. In fact,
Detroit has been said to have regressed. But's that not all that people
are driving.
There are also concerted determined efforts by Exxon et al. to sway
popular thought.
I would be happy with "technology is not necessarily a panacea, and in
many cases hasn't been because of the way it's been applied or what's been
done with the results." And: "We need to take advantage of what technology
does offer, not misuse it, and this may take some major culture shifts."
IMHO there has been some movement in that direction, just not enough, and
I completely agree that this is a big problem.
Julie
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008, Mark Gilkey wrote:
> Julie,
>
> The questions that you asked are the same questions that will be asked by
> many people. What I said was counter-intuitive.
>
> Here is some info to support my claims:
>
> 1) Regarding the statement that automobile engine efficiency has increased
> 30% and 29/30 of that went into power rather than fuel economy... This
> comes from 2 sources, one of which I stupidly failed to write down. Here's
> the other:
>
>
> *NARRATOR:* Over several decades, automotive engineers at Sloan and other
> labs around the world have increased engine efficiency by 30 percent.
> *JOHN HEYWOOD: *Engines and transmissions have got steadily more efficient,