Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
I would add energy efficiency as #3.
Some pervert the Jevon's Paradox to argue against this,but even Stanley Jevons was incorrect in his logic concerning efficiency and consumption.
Efficiency can be used as an excuse to just use more,leading to zero overall conservation,but it's conditional.
In 1974,I went from 18-mpg,to 41-mpg overnight,with off-the-shelf technology.
If I could get into a TESLA Model-3,I could be at 170 mpg-e within 6-months.
|
Efficiency sometimes has a large positive benefit at reducing consumption and sometimes doesn't. Home appliances/electronics have gotten more efficient over the years, and as a result, per capita electrical use has gone down slightly.
The thing is, if the entire US started driving 50 MPG cars instead of our (20 MPG?) vehicles, we'd what, forstall global warming by a couple months? Then as demand for fuel dropped and supply increased, the price would plummet. With relatively cheap fuel, other countries where most people don't own a vehicle would start buying them and driving.
I'd say that with global demand for petrol, reducing consumption in any 1 geographic location will do little to affect overall consumption in the long term.
That said, I'm all for efficiency for efficiency's sake. There's no point in consuming something needlessly.