Friday, November 22, 2013

The Efficiency Dilemma - David Owen

In the article “The Efficiency Dilemma,” David Owens argues that efforts to increase environmental sustainability through energy efficiency are not just impossible but actually creates greater problems. Owens wrote the article in the New Yorker in late 2010. Earlier in that year, the U.S. federal government had passed new standards for higher fuel economy in vehicles, while the World Economic Forum had published a report titles “Toward a More Energy Efficient World.” In general, most people see energy efficiency as a path for reducing fuel consumption and becoming a greener world. However, Owens worries that increasing energy efficiency has allowed us to consume so much more that this new energy consumption offsets and soars higher than our past levels.

Owen’s main argument comes from the 19th Century British economist William Stanley Jevons and his theory referred to as the Jevons paradox. Jevons proposes that technological progress meant to increase efficiency with an energy resource tends to increase instead of decrease the overall consumption. This reversal of intentions is also named the rebound effect. Owen notes how this paradox has been present throughout the history of civilization, and fears that recent trends could lead to environmental hazards.

Owens uses the examples of refrigerators and air conditioners as to how increased efficiency has led Americans to drastically increase consumption. To begin with, when a more energy efficient model comes out, many families still continue using their original model. This means they are just adding more energy costs to their daily lives. As more households are able to afford cheaper models, they are then tempted to purchase more complimentary products; people buy more food for their refrigerator or buy more items for their home since they can live more comfortably with the AC. Thus more energy is used to distribute all these products. As a result, this increased consumption outweighs the initial energy savings.

Throughout his article, Owen looks at the claims of advocates of energy efficiency. Advocates say the rebound effect exists, but only in such little numbers that the actual effects are trivial. They also believe that the decrease in energy’s percentage of GDP proves that we are moving toward a world less dependent on energy. However, Owen counters the efficiency advocates’ arguments. Owen believes they are not accounting for a variety of factors, such as that a decrease in carbon emissions in one region can be offset by the increase in emissions in another. Furthermore, the fact the energy is less of our GDP means we are actually more dependent on energy than ever; if we eliminated energy out of our economy, modern life would not exist as we know it.

Owen also finds it troubling that few people are debating the effects of energy efficiency and assuming it is the best way to gain sustainability. Because efficiency doesn’t call for a surrender of comforts like decreasing fuel emissions or telling consumers to purchase less, no one argues against it. Owens urges that energy efficiency should not continue to be given this treatment, and more solutions must come up if we ever wish to increase environmental sustainability.

I found the article very intriguing to read and logical. I especially enjoyed learning about the Jevons paradox because it correlated with past economics classes I have taken. Before reading this, I had always correlated energy efficiency with automatic environmental benefits, but Owen’s argument makes me concerned that we must work harder to save the environment. One possible solution could be combining energy efficiency with smarter consumption. Government and schools could advocate better consumer habits so we decrease wasteful consumption. Also, we could encouraging purchasing local products and food, since transporting these goods would use less energy.

Here are a few interesting links I found if anyone wants to do further reading.

Jevons paradox and Rebound effect on Wikipedia

No comments: