Alternatives to Energy Efficiency

There has been a lot of talk these days about the need for energy efficiency as a way to deal with global warming and energy shortages. However, not everyone who studies energy usage would agree that energy efficiency will decrease energy use.

Some economists point to a rebound effect, or a Jevons Paradox where it has been argued that energy efficiency actually increases the total consumption of energy. Basically the argument is that if appliances, automobiles, lightbulbs, buildings etc become more energy efficient, that the cost of operation on a per hour or per mile basis will decrease. Therefore people will drive more, put more lightbulbs in buildings and/or neglect to turn off the lights, buy more appliances and/or operate them more, and so on. In this scenario technological energy efficiency can look counterproductive from an environmental POV.

And certainly some readers are wondering by now, if this arguement is just another right wing debunkery/diversion tactic trying to confuse people just enough that no effective change will take place. Maybe, maybe not.

One drawback with this arguement is that many examples proponents point to such as the use of coal during the industrial revolution, when coal consumption was increasing dramatically along with technological efficiency of its use, or in the 1980's when Americans bought smaller cars, but also drove more. Of course, it sounds compelling, but correlation does not equal causation. In the case of the industrial revolution the increased use and increased efficiency occured at a time of extremely rapid industrial growth, high population growth, and the replacement of wood with coal as a fuel used for cooking, home heat, and even hot water for laundry and house keeping (with the Victorian obsession with germs going on!). And surely not every historian of that period will agree that coal efficiency was the sole cause of these things. As for Americans driving more during the 80's, it is also not simple to tell whether the reason for increased driving was actually efficient cars or whether it was caused by factors such as smaller households, crime fears discouraging transit use or prompting parents to drive kids to school, more people moving to distant suburbs, the materialistic attitude of the time generally, low gas prices, and so on.

In short, separating a Jevons paradox from other factors can be difficult. But either way it is certain that technological efficiency alone is not guaranteed to conserve energy or resources in a meaningful way.

So what are some alternatives?

One option is simply to apply taxes to fuel, electricity, water, methane, etc, in such a manner that price increases are guaranteed to adjust for increases in efficiency. However, this method has often been criticized for punishing citizens on mass for "virtuous" behavior.

Perhaps the oldest, simplest, and most unpopular method of curbing resource use is rationing. However, not all rationing methods are loophole free. And experience with this method outside of times of war or crisis is relatively limited.

Other suggestions include ideas such as a mileage tax for automobile miles, or imposing an annual cap on resource use and various systems of credits to regulate it. In the case of electric and water utitilties some critics have posed charging fees on a "curb", much like some teachers give out grades on a curb. In short, the people who consume the least electricity and water pay the lowest price for it, while those who consume the most get a higher price not just as a grand total, but per unit. That way, even as technology improves people will be rewarded or punished for better or worse habits to same degree. However such a system could become complicated due to factors such as differing household sizes or needs, as well as the increasing number of people who use solar panels, and a sell some electricity back to the grid.

Even more radical arguements claim that energy consumption would be best controlled indirectly through mechanism such as city planning or land use policy. Namley if people are encouraged to buy large houses in far flung suburbs, that they are more likely to drive more and to use more energy at home. Similarly, some water conservation advocates argue that agricultural policy is more important towards water conservative than more obvious methods of water conservation, because agriculture uses so much water, and because some crops are much thirstier than others. Some even suggest that we might have to redesign modern economies in such a manner that they don't require endless growth to ward off recessions.

Does that mean you shouldn't buy those LED lightbulbs? No. But purchasing technological solutions, for energy efficiency and conservation may not by itself truly solve the problem.