Hi Jim,
re: "And not even a NYT hat-tip to Jevons"
You noticed, too, eh? Although Jevons-like implications are discussed. I've gone round and round on this subject with pundits whose focus is so tied up in carbon mitigation through renewables that they've resorted to rationalizing that efficiency is more detrimental than beneficial. Jevons on Steroids, in other words. Some of them, whose names would be immediately recognizable here, can be totally unrelenting in these regards.
I maintain, in contrast, that it's neither a zero-sum game, nor a topic that can be discussed in isolation, and certainly not a question of either efficiency or going all-out renewable. At least not at this time.
Efficiency speaks to behavior as much as it does about technology. Henry lives 200 miles from their place of employment and travels to the BigCity each day by car. He buys a new car that's more efficient, so he has more money in his pockets to do... what? Drive around more of the day? OK, he'll probably go out and spend it on something that also today consumes less energy than it would have twenty years ago, or maybe not. Or maybe he'll simply take those savings and finally resume going to that concert once a month like he did before he took on the burdens of modern life,
A more sideways approach, Mary decides to move closer to the job and has twice the amount of discretionary spend in her pocket than she did before. So, she does.... what?
FAC
------ |
