WEBVTT - The Efficiency Paradox 0:00:04.840 --> 0:00:07.280 Hey, everybody, Robert Evans here this is it could happen 0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:09.520 here the show about how things are falling apart and 0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:12.319 how maybe they could be made a bit better. Uh. 0:00:13.119 --> 0:00:16.960 Right now, today we're doing an episode that is based 0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:20.439 on a I don't know essay Garrison wrote and I 0:00:20.720 --> 0:00:23.880 edited that we think you'll find interesting. So here it goes. 0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.440 Green capitalism promises to deliver us all the same luxuries 0:00:28.440 --> 0:00:31.200 and commodities that we enjoy today, but without doing net 0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:34.680 harm to the biosphere. It's the message liberal elites try 0:00:34.720 --> 0:00:36.960 to hold on when they make their case for being 0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:41.560 better stewards of the environment than Republicans. This is not untrue, 0:00:41.640 --> 0:00:44.160 but it's also not true enough to stop your house 0:00:44.159 --> 0:00:46.600 from flooding or your town from being incinerated in a 0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:50.800 hell storm. When it comes to the methods green capitalism 0:00:50.840 --> 0:00:53.880 posits by which we might reverse course without changing the 0:00:53.920 --> 0:00:56.880 direction of the ship. One term you'll hear often is 0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:00.360 energy efficiency. I want to read a statement I found 0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:03.080 on white House dot gov, a fact sheet on the 0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:06.559 new US government commitment to reduce carbon emissions by fifty 0:01:06.600 --> 0:01:11.560 to fifty I should note that's of the two thousand 0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:15.400 five levels which were like high or something like that. Anyway, 0:01:15.440 --> 0:01:18.880 here's the quote. The United States can create good paying 0:01:18.959 --> 0:01:21.880 jobs and cut emissions and energy costs for families by 0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:25.720 supporting efficiency upgrades and electrification and buildings. Through support for 0:01:25.800 --> 0:01:30.280 job creating retrofit programs and sustainable affordable housing, wider use 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:33.199 of heat pumps and induction stoves, adoption of modern energy 0:01:33.240 --> 0:01:36.280 codes for new buildings. The United States will also invest 0:01:36.319 --> 0:01:39.959 in new technologies to reduce emissions associated with construction, including 0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:45.120 for high performance electrified buildings. Now, energy efficiency is in 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:47.840 fact a fine goal, and trying to reduce emissions is 0:01:48.000 --> 0:01:51.280 broadly good. But the sad and kind of weird fact 0:01:51.400 --> 0:01:55.440 is that increasing efficiency can sometimes mean increasing pollution through 0:01:55.480 --> 0:01:58.680 what's known as the efficiency paradox, which is, of course 0:01:59.080 --> 0:02:01.320 the title of the episod out because what you want 0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:03.480 you want us to think of a second title, of 0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:06.880 a separate title from that. Come on. So, first off, 0:02:07.360 --> 0:02:11.800 what does energy efficiency mean? In general terms? Energy efficiency 0:02:11.880 --> 0:02:14.200 refers to the amount of output that can be produced 0:02:14.240 --> 0:02:17.640 with a given input of energy. Output being stuff that 0:02:17.760 --> 0:02:20.040 energy is used to do, like like your house, or 0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:24.240 wash your clothing, or power your wall mounted twenty volt 0:02:24.360 --> 0:02:27.359 vibrator that requires as much electricity as an arc welder 0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:30.800 in order to use. Energy savings are the reduction of 0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:34.320 energy use without the loss of output produced. Improved energy 0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:37.360 efficiency is expected to bring a number of benefits. First 0:02:37.360 --> 0:02:41.720 of all, reducing energy usage should result in lower energy bills. Ideally, 0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:45.639 reduced energy demand also means that energy imports can be decreased. 0:02:46.000 --> 0:02:50.040 The International Energy Agency has estimated that strict efficiency policies 0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:52.880 could allow the world to achieve more than forty of 0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:56.160 the greenhouse gas emissions cuts needed to reach its climate 0:02:56.200 --> 0:03:00.200 goals even without new technology, So there is considerable goal 0:03:00.280 --> 0:03:03.640 room within the existing structures of global society to reduce 0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:09.079 emissions a lot without fancy space technology. But despite substantial 0:03:09.160 --> 0:03:11.960 energy efficiency gains in the past few decades and decreases 0:03:12.000 --> 0:03:14.799 an output from places like the United States, we as 0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:17.799 a species are using more energy than we have pretty 0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:21.480 much forever, and emissions wildly surpass are or the Earth's 0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:25.480 ability to handle them. Quoting from the Global Carbon Project quote, 0:03:25.800 --> 0:03:30.040 global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization, despite positive progress in 0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:32.720 twenty countries whose economies have grown over the last decade 0:03:32.720 --> 0:03:35.440 and their emissions have declined. Growth and energy used from 0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:38.200 fossil fuel sources is still outpacing the rise of low 0:03:38.240 --> 0:03:42.200 carbon sources and activities. A robust global economy in sufficient 0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:45.480 emission reductions and developed countries, and a need for increased 0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:48.720 energy use in developing countries where per capita emissions remain 0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:51.360 far below those of wealthier nations, will continue to put 0:03:51.440 --> 0:03:54.640 upward pressure on CEO two emissions. They use the term 0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:59.360 developing um and developed. We don't prefer those. But obviously 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:02.560 population growth contributes to all that, the growth and the 0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:06.280 use of energy and the emissions of carbon um you know, 0:04:06.360 --> 0:04:08.360 more people, more cars in the road, whatever, But it's 0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:11.960 not really the primary factor that's adding onto the increase 0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:14.360 in energy use for the human race. We'll talk about 0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:16.920 that later though. For now, it's important to note that 0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:20.080 the full potential energy savings, like in these kind of 0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:23.000 hypotheticals about how much could be saved by improving efficiency, 0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:26.480 are usually estimated by assuming that demand for energy services 0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:30.280 will remain unchanged after energy efficiency gains. So when they 0:04:30.320 --> 0:04:34.400 say that we can get the greenhouse emissions, gases gas 0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:38.719 reductions we need by increasing efficiency, they're doing that assuming 0:04:38.720 --> 0:04:41.440 that nothing will change about our overall energy use when 0:04:41.480 --> 0:04:44.799 we make things more efficient. But time and time again, 0:04:44.839 --> 0:04:47.240 we see that once products are made more energy efficient, 0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:50.839 people often end up consuming, producing, or even using more 0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:54.480 of the thing, which makes the potential savings less meaningful 0:04:54.520 --> 0:04:56.720 in a net result. Doesn't mean that it's not a 0:04:56.720 --> 0:04:58.760 net good, but it's not as much as is often 0:04:58.800 --> 0:05:02.600 calculated in these climate proposals. You can see this demonstrated 0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:05.480 on the job. If you're in say food services, if 0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:07.440 you happen to figure out how to do a task faster, 0:05:07.680 --> 0:05:10.080 your boss probably isn't gonna let you use that extra 0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:13.240 time to just chill out and do stuff on your phone. Um. 0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:16.279 What is the phrase if you can lean, you can clean? Um? 0:05:16.360 --> 0:05:19.320 So if you do something faster now, you're just expected 0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:21.920 to do it faster all the time and output more 0:05:21.960 --> 0:05:25.160 total work for your boss. This is the paradox of efficiency, 0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:27.800 and it applies to energy as well. On a societal level. 0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:31.479 Increased energy efficiency is a double edged sword, having the 0:05:31.480 --> 0:05:35.120 potential to help cut emissions by a significant factor um 0:05:35.200 --> 0:05:38.000 and having the potential to increase our total energy used 0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:40.600 depending on what is made more efficient and how people 0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:44.120 react to it. The idea that energy efficiency improvements can 0:05:44.160 --> 0:05:47.080 actually lead to more overall energy use goes all the 0:05:47.080 --> 0:05:49.960 way back to the start of the Industrial Revolution. In 0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:53.839 eighteen sixty five, economist William Stanley Jeevens published a book 0:05:53.920 --> 0:05:57.159 called The Coal Question, in which he argued that innovation 0:05:57.240 --> 0:05:59.880 and efficiency, particularly in the case of the coal powered 0:06:00.040 --> 0:06:03.479 deam engine, would actually increase the overall consumption of coal, 0:06:03.640 --> 0:06:06.200 rather than reducing it as it had been intended to do. 0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:09.880 His prediction that efficiency improvements on steam engines would lead 0:06:09.960 --> 0:06:14.520 to massive economic expansion accelerating coal consumption was very much correct. 0:06:14.920 --> 0:06:18.600 This idea, then dubbed the Jeevens paradox, is still very 0:06:18.720 --> 0:06:22.320 much worth considering when we discuss efficiency gains and policies 0:06:22.360 --> 0:06:25.440 that are meant to reduce energy consumption and thereby fight 0:06:25.480 --> 0:06:29.120 climate change. In modern terms, we describe the process by 0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:32.640 which potential energy savings can be cut by greater use 0:06:32.760 --> 0:06:36.640 of the energy efficient product as the rebound effect. There 0:06:36.680 --> 0:06:39.560 are two different kinds of rebound effects observed, the most 0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:43.040 obvious of which is dubbed the direct rebound effect. Direct 0:06:43.120 --> 0:06:46.279 rebounds are observed when improvements and energy efficiency for a 0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:50.479 particular energy service reduces the effective price of that service 0:06:50.560 --> 0:06:54.040 and thus provides incentives to increase its demand. This leads 0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:57.640 to the overall increased efficiency not equaling to a reduction 0:06:57.800 --> 0:07:00.960 energy used as it as you might think. Direct rebounds 0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.000 are observed when improvements and energy efficiency for a particular 0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:07.000 energy service reduces the effective price of that enough that 0:07:07.040 --> 0:07:10.720 it provides incentives to increase its demand. You may upgrade 0:07:10.760 --> 0:07:13.280 to a more energy efficient appliance, but because of the 0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:15.920 lower energy costs, you'll use the appliance more often and 0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:19.440 thus use more total energy. Or in some cases, energy 0:07:19.480 --> 0:07:22.520 efficiency gains are cut by the fact that more efficient 0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:26.520 products allow people to use more of that product. For example, 0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:30.120 someone may get a more efficient fridge that's also much larger, 0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:32.960 and so even though it cools more efficiently, it's also 0:07:33.080 --> 0:07:37.840 consuming overall more energy. Transportation has a lot of direct rebounds. 0:07:37.920 --> 0:07:41.560 Despite massive fuel efficiency gains in recent years, transportation is 0:07:41.600 --> 0:07:46.840 still responsible for twenty of global greenhouse gas emissions. Transportations 0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:50.320 contribution to global warming is quickly increasing, with travel producing 0:07:50.360 --> 0:07:54.480 greater and greater percentages of the planet's carbon footprint. Private 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:57.840 automobile tailpipes will drive this phenomenon for the foreseeable future, 0:07:57.920 --> 0:07:59.920 as the number of active vehicles on the road is 0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:02.560 projected to grow from seven million in the year two 0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:06.400 thousand to two billion by so even though cars are 0:08:06.440 --> 0:08:09.280 a lot more efficient, vastly more cars are being used. 0:08:09.320 --> 0:08:12.440 And of course that's not entirely. It doesn't mean that, like, 0:08:12.600 --> 0:08:15.000 more efficient cars cause people to buy more cars, but 0:08:15.040 --> 0:08:17.520 it does make it more affordable for more people to 0:08:17.560 --> 0:08:20.360 own cars and to drive them further, which drives up, 0:08:20.480 --> 0:08:23.920 you know, fuel use, and drives up emissions. And you 0:08:23.960 --> 0:08:26.400 see how the whole problem works, and it's not just cars. 0:08:26.440 --> 0:08:29.360 When planes became more fuel efficient, ticket prices decrease and 0:08:29.400 --> 0:08:32.320 more people started to travel by plane. As cost per 0:08:32.360 --> 0:08:35.400 mile dropped, more miles were flown. The fact that airplanes 0:08:35.400 --> 0:08:38.320 got more fuel efficient didn't reduce general pollution by the 0:08:38.400 --> 0:08:41.640 air travel industry, quite to the contrary. In fact, the 0:08:41.720 --> 0:08:44.880 decreased emissions led to an increase in air travel, which 0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:46.880 shot a hell of a lot more poison out into 0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:49.360 the sky and also gave us eat pray love. So 0:08:49.840 --> 0:08:53.360 the other kinds of rebounds are indirect rebound effects. This 0:08:53.400 --> 0:08:56.760 refers to when energy efficiency leads to monetary savings for 0:08:56.800 --> 0:08:59.720 a producer or consumer who then can spend those extra 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:02.400 says things, on other carbon emitting goods and services that 0:09:02.480 --> 0:09:05.640 otherwise they couldn't afford. For example, you buy a more 0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:07.960 fuel efficient car, you save money on fuel, and you 0:09:07.960 --> 0:09:09.840 wind up with extra funds in your bank account that 0:09:09.840 --> 0:09:11.679 you can use on a vacation, and maybe you take 0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:13.880 a flight on that vacation. So in the end, you 0:09:13.920 --> 0:09:16.000 emit more c O two despite the fact that you're 0:09:16.000 --> 0:09:18.559 emitting less c O two through your car. You've got 0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:20.559 five bucks extra in the bank and you fly to 0:09:20.640 --> 0:09:24.280 Mexico on it. Right, That's an indirect rebound effect. So 0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:26.760 even if a product is replaced by a more efficient 0:09:26.800 --> 0:09:29.760 one with similar respects, lower energy bills can mean that 0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:32.280 more consumers will have more money to spend on goods 0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:35.320 and services. This is generally seen as desirable from a 0:09:35.400 --> 0:09:39.040 social and economic standpoint, and probably from an individual standpoint. 0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:42.400 Having more money is always useful UM, but it involves 0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:46.040 additional energy consumption means that you're consuming more, you're emitting 0:09:46.080 --> 0:09:49.880 more UM, and so the savings and whatnot haven't actually 0:09:49.920 --> 0:09:51.840 led to a savings in terms of, you know, from 0:09:51.880 --> 0:09:55.240 an environmental perspective. An analysis of EU data shows that 0:09:55.240 --> 0:09:58.520 out of twenty nine EU countries, eleven experienced rebound effects 0:09:58.520 --> 0:10:01.320 of over fifty which means more than half of the 0:10:01.400 --> 0:10:06.560 gains in energy efficiency were consumed by increases in energy use. 0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:10.080 Six of those countries, including Denmark and Finland, reached over 0:10:11.000 --> 0:10:13.800 rebound effects. This is called a backfire, and it means 0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:17.480 that in those six countries, extra energy spending overtook all 0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:21.080 of the efficiency gains achieved. Air Conditioning and heating are 0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:24.640 large contributors to both direct and indirect rebounds. A rebound 0:10:24.640 --> 0:10:26.960 effect as large as sixty percent has been shown in 0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:30.680 increased improvements and efficiency in the residential heating sector, which 0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:33.400 is something that the White House specifically quote about in 0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:36.959 their paper. In China, long term rebound effects ranging from 0:10:37.000 --> 0:10:40.120 forty six percent to fifty six percent for residential electricity 0:10:40.120 --> 0:10:43.160 consumption in Beijing have been estimated. All of this data 0:10:43.240 --> 0:10:46.280 casts doubt on the wisdom of relying on energy efficiency 0:10:46.360 --> 0:10:49.480 policies to reduce energy demand. I'm gonna quote here from 0:10:49.520 --> 0:10:53.320 a report by the Copenhagen School of Energy Infrastructure. In 0:10:53.360 --> 0:10:56.600 recent decades, large increases in demand for energy services have 0:10:56.640 --> 0:11:00.720 globally driven energy consumption. As a counterbalance, energy efficiency has 0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:03.920 become a key energy policy mechanism to tackle higher energy 0:11:03.920 --> 0:11:07.280 consumption and emissions, and countries and regions have adopted different 0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:10.880 targets and policies to achieve energy and environmental objectives. The 0:11:10.920 --> 0:11:13.520 main goals of these policies are to minimize the dependence 0:11:13.559 --> 0:11:16.280 on fossil fuels and mitigate local air pollution and g 0:11:16.480 --> 0:11:19.440 h G emissions. This has been particularly relevant for the 0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:22.840 energy intensive sectors. The development and deployment of more efficient 0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:26.640 technologies are, along with more technology management, the main channel 0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:30.720 to achieve these environmental and energy objectives. However, energy efficiency 0:11:30.760 --> 0:11:33.840 improvements can lead to changes in the demand for energy services, 0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:37.719 changes that offset some of the expected energy savings. Consequently, 0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:41.720 forecasts of energy consumption reductions may be overstated. As evidenced 0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:44.400 by the empirical literature, rebound effects can be a non 0:11:44.400 --> 0:11:48.400 negligible issue. Therefore, ignoring them can imply an overestimation of 0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:51.720 the benefits coming from energy efficiency improvements. This can in 0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:54.680 turn lead to decisions such as the overallocation of public 0:11:54.720 --> 0:11:58.719 funds to ineffective environmental and energy policies. Policy Makers need 0:11:58.760 --> 0:12:01.319 to take rebound effects in to account for air quality, 0:12:01.400 --> 0:12:05.000 energy security, and climate change policy reasons. A rebound effect 0:12:05.040 --> 0:12:08.400 different from zero implies that the expected proportional reductions and 0:12:08.400 --> 0:12:12.280 emissions from fuel efficiency improvements might not be achieved. Therefore, 0:12:12.400 --> 0:12:15.160 the policy goals to reach specific levels of emissions through 0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:29.319 fuel efficiency enhancements may need to be adjusted accordingly. And again, 0:12:29.400 --> 0:12:32.160 we have nothing against the idea of making more efficient devices. 0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:35.080 The point is that energy efficiency can't be pursued in 0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:37.719 a vacuum. It has to coincide with changes to a 0:12:37.800 --> 0:12:41.240 less extract of cancerous mindset regarding the Earth's resources and 0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:44.520 carrying capacity. Just telling someone you can drive more for 0:12:44.640 --> 0:12:46.920 less money now, or you can afford to keep your 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.520 TV on all the time doesn't really help anything. My 0:12:50.679 --> 0:12:54.200 fear is that governments and corporations, the neoliberal leviathan as 0:12:54.240 --> 0:12:56.520 we've come to call it on this show, will focus 0:12:56.559 --> 0:13:00.480 almost overwhelmingly on energy efficiency to maintain economic growth and 0:13:00.520 --> 0:13:03.840 obscure the overall lack of action on stopping carbon emissions. 0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:07.920 Think Joe Biden doing donuts in an electric jeep through 0:13:08.000 --> 0:13:11.200 such a lens as the Biden administration. Energy efficiency is 0:13:11.200 --> 0:13:14.040 a foil to climate change is a charade being used 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:16.760 to keep relentless economic growth. Feud is a net good. 0:13:17.080 --> 0:13:19.319 It plays into the myth that will be able to mitigate, 0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:22.040 adapt and survive the effects of climate change with little 0:13:22.040 --> 0:13:25.040 to no change to our current lifestyles. What we need 0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:28.120 to do is decouple human well being from energy consumption 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:32.079 and consumption in general to effectively combat climate change. This 0:13:32.120 --> 0:13:34.680 needs to happen at such a scale that advocating for 0:13:34.760 --> 0:13:38.040 individual changes in lifestyle will never be enough, but that 0:13:38.200 --> 0:13:40.880 is still a significant part of the puzzle. The trick 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:42.920 comes in getting people to accept the fact that their 0:13:42.960 --> 0:13:45.440 life will need to change without them telling them and 0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:47.720 buying this product instead of that product. Is how you 0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:50.920 do it. That said, populations of people can and do 0:13:51.120 --> 0:13:54.920 change their behaviors in pretty profound ways. In nineteen fifty, 0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:57.480 abortion was not at all an issue for the religious right. 0:13:57.840 --> 0:14:00.840 Resistance to abortion might make some products and distrust you, 0:14:01.040 --> 0:14:04.120 because that was seen as a Catholic concern. Now abortion 0:14:04.160 --> 0:14:07.120 is the defining political issue of the ascendant right there 0:14:07.160 --> 0:14:09.480 promised to destroy. It is the rock upon which their 0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:13.120 titanic power is based. In a less calamitous sense, since 0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:15.240 two thousand seven, we've gone from a time in which 0:14:15.280 --> 0:14:18.319 smartphones were expensive trash for rich people to buy to today, 0:14:18.520 --> 0:14:20.920 when they're expensive trash that every human being who can 0:14:20.960 --> 0:14:23.360 afford to has to carry at all times because they're 0:14:23.400 --> 0:14:26.840 so utterly integrated to our daily life. So yes, people 0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:30.000 can change. A bigger challenge, though, will be to change 0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:33.760 the mindset of industry, which is not entirely or even 0:14:33.800 --> 0:14:36.760 often driven by consumer demand. As we've seen with the 0:14:36.800 --> 0:14:39.440 release of papers proving Chevron and other oil and gas 0:14:39.440 --> 0:14:42.320 companies knew about and deliberately hid research on climate change 0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:45.160 for decades, Big capital will put its thumb on the 0:14:45.200 --> 0:14:48.200 scale every step of the way. In other words, if 0:14:48.240 --> 0:14:51.600 you come at the behemoth that is the integrated industrial economy, 0:14:51.920 --> 0:14:55.000 you'd best come correct. How do we do that? Well, 0:14:55.360 --> 0:14:58.080 if anybody really knew, they would have, you know, done 0:14:58.080 --> 0:15:01.520 it by now. The human infast structure of extractive capitalism 0:15:01.600 --> 0:15:04.280 is deep and vast and tightly woven into the structure 0:15:04.280 --> 0:15:07.760 of every government with any real power. So with the 0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:10.240 full understanding and admission that we aren't claiming to have 0:15:10.280 --> 0:15:13.680 solutions to that problem, let's talk about something that will 0:15:13.680 --> 0:15:16.720 at least be part of any real solution to the problem. 0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:19.720 D growth. This is a term will explain in more 0:15:19.760 --> 0:15:22.360 detail later, but we mean it's simply as a holistic 0:15:22.360 --> 0:15:26.840 approach to encouraging reduction and energy consumption and global environmental justice. 0:15:27.480 --> 0:15:30.720 A paper on the Jeevens paradox and the link between innovation, 0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:34.520 efficiency and sustainability for the Frontiers and Energy Research concluded 0:15:34.600 --> 0:15:38.720 quote the Jevens paradox and tales that sustainability problems cannot 0:15:38.720 --> 0:15:42.280 be solved by technological innovations alone. They must be solved 0:15:42.280 --> 0:15:46.680 through institutional and behavioral changes. While there are still differences 0:15:46.680 --> 0:15:49.280 of opinion about the scale every bound effects and ongoing 0:15:49.360 --> 0:15:51.840 arguments about the macro and micro and longer and shorter 0:15:51.960 --> 0:15:55.560 term consequences of efficiency, our interest in this topic today 0:15:55.640 --> 0:15:58.160 is driven by the goal of improving how we use 0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:02.640 energy rather than totally were hauling or abandoning efficiency. One 0:16:02.640 --> 0:16:05.680 example would be the current fight in Europe over smartphone chargers. 0:16:06.040 --> 0:16:08.560 Most of the rest of the smartphone industry worldwide has 0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:11.640 jumped onto USBC. Is the right kind of port for charging, 0:16:11.680 --> 0:16:15.440 et cetera with your device. Before this point, those of 0:16:15.480 --> 0:16:17.560 you have been using smartphones for a decade or we'll remember, 0:16:17.640 --> 0:16:19.920 there were tons of different charges and thus a tons 0:16:19.920 --> 0:16:21.520 of different waste. Every phone had to come with a 0:16:21.520 --> 0:16:23.280 new charger. A lot of them wound up in the 0:16:23.280 --> 0:16:27.800 trash that has been reduced by everyone jumping onto USBC. 0:16:28.080 --> 0:16:30.800 But Apple continues to use their own special charger. And 0:16:30.840 --> 0:16:32.920 now the EU was promising to make a law to 0:16:33.040 --> 0:16:36.680 mandate USBC for charging new phones in an attempt to 0:16:36.720 --> 0:16:40.200 reduce waste. This isn't again a bad thing, but if 0:16:40.240 --> 0:16:44.000 someone's really concerned with waste among the smartphone industry, planned 0:16:44.000 --> 0:16:48.800 obsolescence is the thing to go after. Now, Targeting planned obsolescence, 0:16:48.800 --> 0:16:51.280 stopping it includes a number of things. And for one thing, 0:16:51.320 --> 0:16:53.840 you have to fight for the right to repair devices, 0:16:53.880 --> 0:16:56.400 which is something that a number of corporations, not just 0:16:56.440 --> 0:16:58.880 in the smartphone industry, have lobbied to in some cases 0:16:59.000 --> 0:17:03.440 make illegal. More than that, it's stopping somehow these companies 0:17:03.480 --> 0:17:06.240 from making the conscious decision to brick old technology to 0:17:06.320 --> 0:17:09.000 increase profits, and that aspect of it is the bigger 0:17:09.119 --> 0:17:12.200 enemy than even the right to repair. As electronic device 0:17:12.240 --> 0:17:14.760 has become common and more sectors of daily life via 0:17:14.800 --> 0:17:17.800 the Internet of Things, the overall share of global energy 0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:20.719 use that goes to making new versions of old products 0:17:20.760 --> 0:17:23.080 that could still be working but are designed to break 0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:26.760 is is really quite depressing. For one example of how 0:17:26.840 --> 0:17:29.640 large it must be, I haven't found any solid information 0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:32.159 on the total size of this industry. Things that you 0:17:32.200 --> 0:17:34.560 have to repeatedly re buy because they're meant to break. 0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:37.719 But the mobile phone industry and two thousand nineteen alone 0:17:37.760 --> 0:17:41.040 was four point six percent of global GDP, So that's 0:17:41.240 --> 0:17:45.000 close to five percent of global GDP just from making 0:17:45.040 --> 0:17:47.040 phones that are designed to break so you have to 0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:49.520 buy a new phone. This is an example of an 0:17:49.560 --> 0:17:52.080 area in which people's perspectives have to be changed, and 0:17:52.240 --> 0:17:54.560 I think actually that digital fatigue, the fact that we're 0:17:54.560 --> 0:17:57.920 also fucking exhausted with these devices these days, may provide 0:17:58.000 --> 0:18:00.560 somewhat of an inroad for convincing people that they need 0:18:00.600 --> 0:18:04.320 to buy new gadgets less often. But because these gadgets 0:18:04.320 --> 0:18:07.560 are so crucial to daily life, the industry actually also 0:18:07.600 --> 0:18:10.200 has to be forced to change. And again, rite repair 0:18:10.320 --> 0:18:12.600 is one part of this, but that doesn't stop Apple 0:18:12.640 --> 0:18:15.080 from just deciding to throttle their old devices whenever they 0:18:15.119 --> 0:18:16.920 need to add a new layer to the money pile. 0:18:17.880 --> 0:18:20.240 Our overall point with all this is that solutions to 0:18:20.240 --> 0:18:22.639 climate change have to be cultural and not just based 0:18:22.640 --> 0:18:24.879 in some version of will invent a better version and 0:18:24.880 --> 0:18:27.919 that will solve the problem. Hybrid gas burning cars and 0:18:28.000 --> 0:18:31.840 standardized charging chords are nibbling around the edges of the problem. 0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:35.320 Relying on technological advances pacifies us in the present, and 0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:39.080 it reinforces the need for certain types of human material codependence. 0:18:39.359 --> 0:18:42.160 And that kind of codependence leads to increased dependency and 0:18:42.200 --> 0:18:44.960 more extraction. By no means am I trying to say 0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:47.439 that innovation is bad. I love gadgets as much as 0:18:47.440 --> 0:18:50.800 the next person. Innovation also has the capacity to heavily 0:18:50.840 --> 0:18:54.520 decreased resource extraction. It just has to be tailored with 0:18:54.560 --> 0:18:57.360 something more than just will make this device more efficient 0:18:57.400 --> 0:19:00.160 so we can use it more or sell more of them. 0:19:00.200 --> 0:19:03.480 The capitalist mode of mass resource extraction and grind for 0:19:03.520 --> 0:19:06.320 efficiency are intertwined, and if we are to limit the 0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:09.560 most catastrophic effects of climate change, we as a culture 0:19:09.640 --> 0:19:12.479 need to rethink how we view efficiency and energy use. 0:19:13.400 --> 0:19:15.959 For the past few hundred years, economic growth has been 0:19:16.000 --> 0:19:18.760 the road that has led to our current ecological dilemma. 0:19:19.040 --> 0:19:22.040 The fantasy of switching over to nuclear and renewable energy 0:19:22.119 --> 0:19:25.240 with a perfectly efficient electric grid to just sidestep climate 0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:28.879 collapse is it's a fantasy. We missed our chance to 0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:32.240 do that. Even if we stop all carbon emissions right now, 0:19:32.359 --> 0:19:35.200 all of them, the carbon already in the atmosphere would 0:19:35.240 --> 0:19:38.119 push US past two degrees celsius of warming in about 0:19:38.160 --> 0:19:42.080 fifty years. So what besides carbon capture can we do 0:19:42.160 --> 0:19:45.000 about this? We as in both you, the regular listener, 0:19:45.040 --> 0:19:47.960 and the goals with power and real influence. Well. The 0:19:48.000 --> 0:19:51.240 two thousand eighteen International Panel and Climate Change Special WORKPORT 0:19:51.320 --> 0:19:55.360 indicated that in the absence of speculative negative emissions technologies, 0:19:55.760 --> 0:19:58.760 the only feasible way to remain within safe carbon budgets 0:19:59.000 --> 0:20:01.879 was for high income nations to actively slow down the 0:20:01.880 --> 0:20:06.119 pace of material production and consumption. D growth is the 0:20:06.160 --> 0:20:09.480 planned reduction of energy use, corporate profits over production, and 0:20:09.600 --> 0:20:13.119 excess consumption designed to bring the economy back into balance 0:20:13.160 --> 0:20:15.879 with the living world in a way that reduces inequality 0:20:15.880 --> 0:20:19.640 while focusing on human and ecological well being. This isn't 0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:22.000 just some sort of utopian Marxist thinking, and in fact, 0:20:22.080 --> 0:20:24.520 a lot of Marxists have critiques of D growth, and 0:20:24.640 --> 0:20:26.639 D growth could be applied to a number of different 0:20:26.680 --> 0:20:30.359 economic and governmental systems. There are even some weirdo capitalist 0:20:30.359 --> 0:20:33.919 advocates of D growth. Discussion about solving climate change can 0:20:33.960 --> 0:20:36.919 get into uncomfortable eugenics e territory if you aren't careful, 0:20:37.040 --> 0:20:39.720 So I should emphasize here that d growth is primarily 0:20:39.760 --> 0:20:45.199 about already wealthy countries limiting their economic growth. When aggregated 0:20:45.240 --> 0:20:47.520 in terms of income, the richest half of the world, 0:20:47.760 --> 0:20:51.000 high and upper middle income countries amid eighty six percent 0:20:51.040 --> 0:20:54.560 of global CO two emissions. The bottom half, lower and 0:20:54.600 --> 0:20:59.520 middle income countries amid only fourteen percent. With very few exceptions. 0:20:59.520 --> 0:21:02.400 The richer the nation is, the more it emits. It's 0:21:02.440 --> 0:21:05.199 all part of the resource extraction infinite growth lie we 0:21:05.240 --> 0:21:08.520 tell ourselves to keep going. Wealth is so much more 0:21:08.560 --> 0:21:11.919 of a factor in emissions than population. North America is 0:21:11.960 --> 0:21:14.480 home to only five percent of the world population, but 0:21:14.520 --> 0:21:17.760 amids nearly eighteen percent of c O two. Asia is 0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:20.320 home to sixty percent of the world's population, but amidst 0:21:20.359 --> 0:21:23.160 just forty nine percent of c O two. Africa has 0:21:23.200 --> 0:21:26.399 sixteen percent of the population but emits just four percent 0:21:26.480 --> 0:21:29.080 of its c O two. This is reflected in per 0:21:29.119 --> 0:21:33.160 capita emissions. The average North American emits seventeen times more 0:21:33.359 --> 0:21:37.280 than the average African. This inequality in global emissions lies 0:21:37.320 --> 0:21:40.080 at the heart of why international agreement on climate change 0:21:40.080 --> 0:21:43.400