Talking More About Using Less: The Politics of Efficiency

grist.org

It's worth closely reading this Avery Palmer piece in CQ Politics: "The price of being green." It puts the frame around American energy/environmental politics in particularly crystalline terms.

To wit: environmentalists want to raise the cost of energy while everyone else wants to lower it.

Or more specifically: in order to lower greenhouse gas emissions, environmentalists want to put a price on carbon via a cap-and-trade system, which would have the effect of raising gasoline and electricity prices. Meanwhile, gas and electricity prices are already high and rising, and everyone else -- including the vast majority of voters -- is keenly concerned to bring those prices down.

"The solutions almost go in opposite directions," said Henry Lee, lecturer in public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

Ergo: it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a major climate-change bill through Congress any time soon.

That is the conventional wisdom, and it dooms climate legislation, no matter what polls tell you about public concern over climate. People vote their wallets -- bet on it.

It's this very dynamic Shellenberger & Nordhaus address in their latest L.A. Times op-ed. Their conclusion is that public policy should not seek to raise (dirty) energy prices, but instead to lower (clean) energy prices. (Read Joe for more on that op-ed.)

That's a reasonable conclusion to draw, if you accept the premises. But we should not accept the premises. They are as follows:

1. The best way to lower energy prices is to increase energy supply.
2. A price on carbon would primarily drive a switch from dirty to clean energy, raising energy prices.
3. Higher energy prices yield higher energy costs.

What's the missing ingredient that disrupts every one of those premises? The big fat hole in the middle of the argument. Anyone? Anyone?

That's right: efficiency.

The absence is glaring throughout the piece. A couple of examples:

It is also likely that the president will try to frame a climate change plan as part of a broader energy strategy, which could include both investments in alternative sources and increased production of fossil fuels.

Hm, if there were only some other part of a broader energy strategy ...

Energy legislation is notoriously difficult to pass because of regional differences that drive wedges inside both parties. Gulf Coast lawmakers tend to support increased oil drilling, for example, while politicians from Appalachia have an interest in protecting the coal industry.

Hm, if only there were some energy policy that could benefit everyone in every region of the country ...

"We have to do something, when we do it, that drives our economy, that adds to our GDP, that makes us more energy secure and deals with climate at the same time," said Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is considered one of the swing votes in the Senate on global warming legislation.

Hm, if only there were an energy policy that did all that at once!

And so on. I don't blame Palmer for this. For some reason, the centrality of efficiency to smart energy policy is only understood by a small community of enviros and wonks. In the broader culture, efficiency is marginal, a kind of add-on that will "soften the impact" slightly. Despite all the energy talk in the campaign so far, efficiency has played a tiny role at best (see: last night's debate).

I'm not sure how to go about rep this state of affairs. There are certain intrinsic difficulties in selling efficiency -- which is not so much a thing as an absence -- in a culture obsessed with exploration and energy supply. Thus far the wonks don't seem to be getting through.

But it's important. Efficiency is what allows us to meet emission targets at a net economic gain. Efficiency is the only effective response to the economic difficulties energy prices impose on the poor and middle-class. Efficiency is what prevents higher energy prices from becoming higher energy costs.

Comments

[JuniorNorman]

In New England we have Les Otten building pellet plants for Maine. He can supply 30% of the oil heat from pellets in 2 years. He will deliver by big trucks with chutes. He can do 70% in 5 years. That still leaves Maine with an excess of wood! The price will be less than oil.
In NH we have GE planning to produce an incandesent that uses energy like a Compact Flouresecent has better light and lasts 5 years! (THE BULB CONTAINS NO MERCURY).
What we need is HEMP-BIODIESEL. Henry Ford designed his first car to run on Hemp-Oil! The banks wouldnt fund it. They made him make it a dangerous dirty smelling gas powered rig.

[sheila]

It's not really "efficiency" we need, it's "conservation," of which efficiency is a major facet. I have been promoting the only win/win/win/win strategy for the past 2 years - LOCAL POINT OF USE SOLUTIONS that incorporate conservation, smart metering, new storage solutions and renewable generation - paid for with Feed In Tariffs.

NO carbon-absorbing ecosystems destroyed by gigantic industrial Big Wind and Big Solar, NO families forced from their homes by eminent domain for massive, GHG-spewing powerlines, NO Robber Baron monopolistic infrastructure to hijack us, NO new roads, NO increased risk of wildfires, etc. INCREASED reliability, INCREASED income to people who do the right thing (assuming we get fair Feed In Tariffs), INCREASED local skilled jobs, INCREASED conservation (again, with FITs, people conserve FAR MORE than with increased prices or "net metering"), INCREASED property values, and generally involving ALL OF US in the Green Economy as real participants, not helpless consumers.

This is the ONLY solution that wins on all bases. Let's push for Feed In Tariffs for point of use systems, and restrictions on destroying nature to produce energy - that's what got us into this mess...

[Trilby]

My energy company provides a "green" alternative power source at a higher cost than their already high rates. This makes no sense to me. If the rate for "green" energy were lower than for other sources, many more people would switch over, no? And that would be good for everyone.

[Thermodynamics]

There is a disconnect between the science of Economics and science like biology or physics. Economics is a cultural construct that describes the distribution of resources within our culture.

Economics does not understand efficiency, except as a part of manufacturing. Assume that I drove my car into a post and spent $2000 to fix it. To an economist I just increased the GDP $2000.

But according to chemistry, my accident results in the actual loss of metal and energy from our zone of use. Efficiency both saves you money and reduces loss of energy and material to entropy (disorder, garbage dump).

[rednecka2z]

Get me an efficient windmill to pump my water. Get me wind or solar power at a reasonable initial cost. I don't want handouts from the Government like everyone else. All I want is the research money concentrated on helping people NOT BIG COMPANIAES or millionairs like Tbone Pickens.

[rednecka2z]

As an Organic Produce Grower I can agree with a lot of what you write. My problem is multifacited. Every Governmet Program is aimed at the Big Guy. Wind Power, too biig to expensive designed to make energy companies bigger. Oh by the way Power companies are adding Fuel Adjustments to their wind generated power bills. Solar Power would take all my production land just to power the necessary processing. Farm assistance? Ha Ha. Labor? ain't anyone willing to work any more, except the illegals. Not an option for this Patriot. I could produce 10 times what I do, clean up the earth and watter, feed the multitudes Just need a little help. Ain't looken for it to happen any time soon.