The Oil Drum | Drumbeat 2nd Monday Open Thread

146 comments on Drumbeat 2nd Monday Open Thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

odograph on June 5, 2006 - 10:18pm

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" today. I've heard a lot on global warming over the years, so there wasn't too much new. It was a bit motivational though. In particular, we need three things for global warming (and peak oil):

Efficiency. Efficiency. Efficiency.

It would be nice to have some alternative (and non carbon emitting) energy ready to go, but as I think TOD readers woudl agree, we don't.

Other than that, I'll be interested to see how the general public takes the film.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The Interloafer on June 5, 2006 - 10:26pm

Efficiency is good but conservation is better. You avoid potential Jevons Paradox pitfalls that way.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on June 5, 2006 - 10:31pm

In broad strokes I consider efficiency to be energy expended per capita, and per nation. Conservation falls into that. An efficient lifestyle involves conservation, etc.

I remain a skeptic on Jevon, but that breaks out into a lot of detail. If you are talking mandates (as we might, if some climate event puts the scare on everybody), it's kind of hard to rebound. If we're talking about market respones to higher prices and/or carbon taxes ... a lot depends on how high those prices and/or taxes are.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The Interloafer on June 5, 2006 - 11:37pm

Oh, O.K. We're probably just talking semantics then. I view efficiency as a means toward conservation, at least in the short term. Same concept, different nomenclature.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on June 6, 2006 - 9:54am

Yeah, semantics. Now some people seem to think that the difference between efficiency and conservation is how you feel about it, ;-), like it's got to hurt to be conservation ... but I think creativity is better than pain.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

kjmclark on June 6, 2006 - 12:10pm

Here's another take, from a "former future" engineer. Conservation means using less of a resource, through whatever means. Efficiency is how much of a resource you use in achieving some result. So it's through large increases in efficiency that a Ford Explorer gets the same gas mileage as a Model T, but there is no conservation involved, since they have the same gas mileage. Worse, there was extra consumption involved, since the person using the Model T would never have considered driving it as much as people drive today.

So, efficiency can, but does not necessarily, lead to reduced consumption, but conservation requires a reduction in consumption. Note that you can use efficiency gains to do more with less, in which case you are both increasing efficiency and conserving. New refrigerators compared to old fall in this category; the increase in efficiency is so significant that you can have a bigger fridge that also uses less electrity. Except for the perceived loss of status, you can get a similar effect switching between an SUV and a gas-sipper, since most SUVs aren't used to carry any more than a small sedan could carry.

You can also conserve without changing efficiency or even while reducing efficiency, by just using something less or not at all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

clifman on June 7, 2006 - 8:42am

"by just using something less or not at all" -

Which is properly known as curtailment. Thus, conservation is composed of both efficiency gains and curtailment.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on June 6, 2006 - 3:38am

i have not seen the movie but i have seen the interview of al gore about the movie. personally while the message is good i think he framed it badly, it's going to give the impression that you can have your cake and eat it too.
if we do have 10 years left before we reach the point of no return(which i think we do) then there is really not much that can be done. it will take longer then 10 years to unseat the current people in power, no not the politicians the lobbyists who pull their strings. also i don't think the cfc analogy works here, that was a problem limited to a few items, this one is linked to a whole lot more.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

veganmaster on June 6, 2006 - 9:05am

I have a very hard time thinking we have 10 years left, as in the last few years the science has revealing that things are much worse than was previously thought. Really, we're not going to stop burning coal, in fact we will burn more of it. The only hope is to affect the co2 levels via direct intervention, but that would require a small miracle considering humanity's consistent lack of foresight when it comes to the side effects our technofixes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oaksmoke on June 6, 2006 - 4:29am

I still think we have to drop consumption below the production to have much policy flexibility. After several years of production declines there will be huge economic and political pressure to dump environmental concerns. If people can't afford to heat their house or drive to work they are going to oppose anything that raises the price of energy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on June 6, 2006 - 9:32am

Gore does a great job of defining the problem. But where are the actions? As far as I know, he hasn't even suggested higher cafe standards, or carbon taxes, or gas taxes or anything else. Perhaps the solutions, like the problem, are inconvenient. The inconvenient truth is that Gore and the vast majority of Americans aren't ready to make the hard choices to do a damn thing about global warming.

Gore recites the mantra that we can have it all -- continued growth and lower energy consumption, too. While this is technically true in the short run, this gets translated into "I can drive by SUV, turn my thermostate down to 65 in the Summer, buy a big house, live far from work, etc, etc. and cut energy use at the same time."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on June 6, 2006 - 9:38am

One slide in his presentation was about how we get there, with wedges for "efficient appliances" and "efficient cars" and ...

He did talk about mileage mandates around the world, without using the word CAFE. He made a bit of hay over the fact that China has such higher standards than we do.

Now, while I think he gets it, I'm not sure how far it sinks in with the audience. Some might think they can "mandage" higher mileage from the automakers, and keep on driving the cars they like.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JN2 on June 6, 2006 - 9:47am

"I can drive by SUV, turn my thermostate down to 65 in the Summer, buy a big house, live far from work, etc, etc. and cut energy use at the same time."

Yes, if you can do it using clean energy. But can we convert to renewables in time? How much time do we have? Would 5% reduction in CO2/year be enough? Or 1%? Or 20%? A 5% per year reduction (fixed) would take us to 25% of current CO2 in 15 years, or to 47% (declining balance). Is either of these good enough? What should our targets be?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on June 6, 2006 - 10:07am

We need a 70% reduction in co2 emissions. That cannot be done with just renewables. Conservation and efficiency have to done at the absolute maximum we can manage.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

JN2 on June 6, 2006 - 11:00am

Tstreet, thanks for your reply.

We need a 70% reduction in co2 emissions.

Interesting number. Where do you get it from?

That cannot be done with just renewables.

It can be done in 15 years at a fixed 5% per year. Why do you say it can't be done?

Conservation and efficiency have to done at the absolute maximum we can manage.

Maybe so. But is this just a belief of yours or do you have data to back it up? And what is the absolute maximum we can manage?

FYI, I really am trying to get a handle on the CO2 situation. If Stuart's 2 - 3% per year decline after PO is correct, my worry is we will still fry the planet. Would 5% per year reduction in CO2 be enough?

(Odograph, thanks for getting me to think in timelines :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.