J. Jevons: I am afraid the drop in fuel prices is killing people.
G. Khazzoom: How's that, global warming?
J. Jevons: No. People drive more. For example, if 40,000 people a year die in car accidents in the US, then a 2.5% increase in driving could equate to a thousand extra deaths.
G. Khazzoom: Ah, the old supply and demand effect, eh? If it's cheaper, people buy more of it.
J. Jevons: Yes! If it is cheaper to drive, people drive more. If you make anything more efficient, it's the same thing as making it cheaper.
G. Khazzoom: So, if you want people to use less of something, making it more efficient might be the opposite of what you want to do.
J. Jevons: Exactly. I just listened to this on a podcast recently: making things like cars and houses more energy efficient makes them cheaper to use, so people use them more.
G. Khazzoom: That reminds me of something I read - I need to look it up again, but it was something about productivity and efficiency leading to economic growth... So, even if individuals don't use more, they spend their money someplace else and the economy grows.
J. Jevons: Well, the point I was getting at is that people drive more when the price of gas is cheaper, and when people drive more, they increase their risk of dying. When the price of gas drops, thousands more people die over the course of the year.
G. Khazzoom: Interesting... I hadn't thought of that. An extension on what you were saying is that even if you want to be green and environmental by making energy more efficient, you're actually going to stimulate the economy and have an even greater impact.
J. Jevons: So, like solar energy is worse than coal energy? Is that what you're saying?
G. Khazzoom: No. Not exactly. If solar were more efficient than coal, then yes, maybe. I don't know that it is, though... I'm just saying that if you used to spend $100 on gas and now only need to spend $90 on gas, you're going to spend the extra $10 on something else.
J. Jevons: Or you're going to drive more...
G. Khazzoom: That's true. But even if you don't drive more, you'll still spend all $100 and whatever you buy requires energy to make. If you spent your extra $10 on hamburgers, for example, you would be making an even greater environmental impact than if you spent all $100 on gas, since cows are worse greenhouse gas emitters than cars. Methane is much worse than CO2.
J. Jevons: So, I guess you were right - the drop in fuel prices is causing global warming.
G. Khazzoom: Just like the global recession caused a large drop in greenhouse gas emissions. Did you hear about that?
J. Jevons: I did, yeah.
G. Khazzoom: Makes you think that the only way to go truly green is to cause a permanent global depression.
J. Jevons: Maybe, but two things go against that: one, a global depression would probably cause a global war and destroy everything (very un-green); and two, economic growth doesn't necessary need to produce more green house gases - that's just the way it is right now.
G. Khazzoom: Hm, that's true... There could be a way of producing more crap and services without using more resources or making more emissions... Ha! I just though of something really twisted.
J. Jevons: What's that?
G. Khazzoom: If over-population is really the problem, then cheaper gas might be the best thing (and laxer safety standards in the automotive industry). No matter how fuel inefficient their vehicles, the lifetime carbon emissions of those extra drivers would be dramatically lower!
J. Jevons: You're sick, K. You're truly sick.
G. Khazzoom: It's like they say, "Save the world, kill yourself!"
http://freakonomics.com/2015/02/05/how-efficient-is-energy-efficiency-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/aml6/pdfs&zips/CaliforniaEnergy.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_%28conservation%29
No comments:
Post a Comment