Should policy aim at specific goals or at enabling mechanisms to reach those goals?
I ask because American energy efficiency improves on average by 2% per year. In the past, we have sort of squandered that efficiency by asking motors to carry a greater load and by getting newer and bigger appliances.
If, on the other hand, we simply used these efficiency gains to reduce energy consumption, by 2050 we would be using half the energy we're using today. That's all we would have to do.
Now, if we also started reducing the load on motors, turbines, etc., by driving cars that weighed less and plugging gaps in our homes, we might be able to do it quicker.
And that's where policy should point--we know that new technology is just around the corner, but we don't know which technology will best serve our needs or when it will be of optimum efficiency to adopt it. So why not focus our energy on a proven way of getting to where we want to be? Just asking...
Interesting discussion on the subject here.
In my heart of hearts, I don't think we'll double alternative generating capacity any time soon, although I think we'll make significant progress. In that same black heart of mine, I don't think we'll recycle and re-use much more than we currently do. But I do think we can weatherize houses and buildings a lot. I think we can move a lot of people onto public transport. I think that telecommuting will take people out of the commute.
And in my heart of hearts, I do think we'll get to where we need to be. Not in five years, although I think we'll start being hopeful by then. But in 40 years. And I think that's soon enough.
Comments