solar powered air conditioners for my home and the goal is to use more air-con in the very hot summers, contrasting our historical pattern of limiting use to conserve resources. The free use of the resource by day means we can use more, be more active in more parts of our home and ultimately replace conservation with consumption.
In our decades of traffic safety research at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, in Canada, we explored this similar paradox under the title “risk homeostasis.” Consider the case of the high-end, 4x4 SUV owner travelling back from skiing while driving on snowy roads. Despite the physics of slowing a hulking vehicle (and the exponential increase to casualty as a function of velocity), these road warriors and top gun drivers will often exacerbate their perilous driving under the false impression that they have increased safety and control.
Coincidentally, I was watching a piece on roads yesterday and the futility of road building to ease traffic congestion. More roads leads to more traffic. Interestingly, in places where they have dismantled arterial roads (usually raised freeways) the overall traffic has reduced even in the surrounding roads.
I am not convinced that aiming for zero emissions energy abundance will raise emissions. More, cheaper energy only adds to emissions if it is not based in zero emissions energy, so the problem isn't in the goal but in the interim states where increased efficiency leads to greater consumption that draws on fossil fuel dependent products and services, ie where the transition lags.
When all our primary energy is zero emissions it is de-coupled from emissions. Other issues like resource depletion and environmental damage remain but energy abundance doesn't have to be a climate problem.
Even having more consumption is not innately problematic from a "what is good for humans" perspective - with 8 billion people and many living in poverty having poor people consume more will be a good thing; the total consumption going up isn't the problem that uneven distribution is.
Well it can be because energy use is correlated to resource use and waste creation. In other words energy is not an emissions problem, more, as you suggest, a social one.
This isn't exactly news. I've known about it for decades, primarily from reading sustainability literature (despite what you claim, the Devon's paradox is well known, discussed and understood in the sustainability field).
While it's a genuine, and troubling, phenomenon, its true extent is rather debatable - many well-informed sustainability academics argue that, particularly with energy, it only happens to a certain percentage, a certain degree, and tends to plateau over time.
So, while the rebound effect needs always to be borne in mind, it does not derail efforts at greater efficiency or cleaner energy - merely clips the ticket a bit, maybe a fair bit, but far from enough to make such efforts pointless.
You write so well here about a very important dynamic principle, John! 👏 As agriculture enabled us to produce more calories per capita, our brains grew bigger and required more energy and produced more amazing technologies (engines, plows, chemicals). These methods enabled more calorie production and required more energy inputs as the human population exploded. As we gorge on the planet's energy supply, Malthus's warnings about exceeding the "carrying capacity" echo loudly. Sadly, it is only an ecological collapse that can impose any effective limits on our voracious energy appetites. Addicts rarely stop by intention.
I’ve recently purchased some
solar powered air conditioners for my home and the goal is to use more air-con in the very hot summers, contrasting our historical pattern of limiting use to conserve resources. The free use of the resource by day means we can use more, be more active in more parts of our home and ultimately replace conservation with consumption.
In our decades of traffic safety research at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, in Canada, we explored this similar paradox under the title “risk homeostasis.” Consider the case of the high-end, 4x4 SUV owner travelling back from skiing while driving on snowy roads. Despite the physics of slowing a hulking vehicle (and the exponential increase to casualty as a function of velocity), these road warriors and top gun drivers will often exacerbate their perilous driving under the false impression that they have increased safety and control.
Coincidentally, I was watching a piece on roads yesterday and the futility of road building to ease traffic congestion. More roads leads to more traffic. Interestingly, in places where they have dismantled arterial roads (usually raised freeways) the overall traffic has reduced even in the surrounding roads.
I am not convinced that aiming for zero emissions energy abundance will raise emissions. More, cheaper energy only adds to emissions if it is not based in zero emissions energy, so the problem isn't in the goal but in the interim states where increased efficiency leads to greater consumption that draws on fossil fuel dependent products and services, ie where the transition lags.
When all our primary energy is zero emissions it is de-coupled from emissions. Other issues like resource depletion and environmental damage remain but energy abundance doesn't have to be a climate problem.
Even having more consumption is not innately problematic from a "what is good for humans" perspective - with 8 billion people and many living in poverty having poor people consume more will be a good thing; the total consumption going up isn't the problem that uneven distribution is.
Well it can be because energy use is correlated to resource use and waste creation. In other words energy is not an emissions problem, more, as you suggest, a social one.
This isn't exactly news. I've known about it for decades, primarily from reading sustainability literature (despite what you claim, the Devon's paradox is well known, discussed and understood in the sustainability field).
While it's a genuine, and troubling, phenomenon, its true extent is rather debatable - many well-informed sustainability academics argue that, particularly with energy, it only happens to a certain percentage, a certain degree, and tends to plateau over time.
So, while the rebound effect needs always to be borne in mind, it does not derail efforts at greater efficiency or cleaner energy - merely clips the ticket a bit, maybe a fair bit, but far from enough to make such efforts pointless.
Bloody auto spell: that is, of course, Jevons, not "Devon's"!
You write so well here about a very important dynamic principle, John! 👏 As agriculture enabled us to produce more calories per capita, our brains grew bigger and required more energy and produced more amazing technologies (engines, plows, chemicals). These methods enabled more calorie production and required more energy inputs as the human population exploded. As we gorge on the planet's energy supply, Malthus's warnings about exceeding the "carrying capacity" echo loudly. Sadly, it is only an ecological collapse that can impose any effective limits on our voracious energy appetites. Addicts rarely stop by intention.
Thanks for the compliment. These topics are difficult to write about because of that brain of ours… egos, emotions and addictions indeed.
I’d love to have your take on my reiteration that Malthus was right. Happy to share copy with you or anyone interested.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Escaping-Malthusian-Trap-Mindful-Sceptic-ebook/dp/B0DHWLBNL4