

The Promise and the Perils of Efficiency - jason_neylon
http://www.cleanweb.org.uk/blog/2013/02/28/the-promise-and-the-perils-of-efficiency/

======
bcoates
The rebound effect he's decrying is a lot like a slippery slope argument. As
things get cheaper you make more of them, which can counter-intuitively lead
to more total spending on them. But this can't go on forever, almost nothing
has unlimited demand even at zero cost.

    
    
      “Techno-fixes” alone are unlikely to reduce our impact.
    

This later part of the document ignores the potentially for decoupling of
energy use from economic output that he mentions earlier in the argument. The
potential for true decoupling is the reason techno-fixes are so compelling,
and there is a history of real progress here. For example, in places with
sanitary plumbing, unlimited population density can be reached without
corresponding increases of the chances of dying of cholera: this environmental
problem has not just been mitigated but eliminated.

~~~
jtownsend_
Thanks very much for the ideas. Well, you're right that the demand for
resources isn't infinite, but it's certainly been growing exponentially, and
it's already big enough to produce a host of negative side effects. All in all
it's a very long way from total resource use reducing due to successful
decoupling, even as efficiency has increased. Take energy for instance.
[http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-
ener...](http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-energy-
consumption-by-source.png) I'm not trying to attack the goal of decoupling or
the means of techno-fixes. I'm a fan of technology. I'm saying that on their
own, techno-fixes are insufficient to deliver reduction in overall resource
use. The sanitation example you mention is interesting. I'm not sure land as a
resource works in nearly the same way as resources flowing through the economy
like energy, water, metals etc. I'll have to consult an economist.

