tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post1569174538973982253..comments2023-06-20T01:49:29.525-07:00Comments on Blogging About the Unthinkable: Amory Lovins: True Believer or Malevolent Deceiver?Sovietologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09099598091505738702noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-74249985613675899862007-10-30T08:39:00.000-07:002007-10-30T08:39:00.000-07:00Well, it seems we disagree about this less than I ...Well, it seems we disagree about this less than I thought, and maybe I was misinterpreting what Rod Adams said as well. It's mainly that I still think that Lovins' rhetoric is the sign of someone who, despite being right some of the time, is basically economically illiterate. So while I wholeheartedly agree with (b), I don't really agree with (a). I really don't think he understands Jevons' paradox, or if he does he dismisses it out of hand. Take, for instance, the most recent contribution by Lovins to the BAS roundtable on nuclear power and climate change:<BR/>http://thebulletin.org/roundtable/nuclear-power-climate-change/<BR/>This was the item I was thinking of when I said that Lovins doesn't understand Jevons' paradox. (Is it less typical of his writing than I thought?) It's one thing to point out the obvious fact that the US has a lot of capacity for increased energy conservation. It's another to claim that China and India can "conserve" their way to modernity.<BR/><BR/>(The "roundtable" itself is pretty painful- it's basically stacked 2-1 against nuclear, and R. Stephen Berry just isn't aggressive enough to challenge his anti-nuclear opponents.)Sovietologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099598091505738702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-51344325370130909222007-10-30T07:57:00.000-07:002007-10-30T07:57:00.000-07:00I don't think Lovins has abandoned the goals of So...I don't think Lovins has abandoned the goals of <I>Soft Energy Paths</I>. Rather, they're goals, and this is how he has chosen to accomplish them--he thinks high-energy civilization is a hole and society needs to stop digging first at least. The methods do seem effective, no?<BR/><BR/>What part are we not seeing eye-to-eye on? I'm not saying I'm necessarily right on all counts; I just want to know where you're coming from.Stewart Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558095937453599908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-39142132766055506702007-10-30T06:51:00.000-07:002007-10-30T06:51:00.000-07:00I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your original commen...I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your original comment on Rod Adams' blog. I agree with almost all of what you say here.<BR/><BR/>Do you think Lovins has abandoned the vision of a transformed, low-energy society he described in <I>Soft Energy Paths</I>? Does he just avoid talking about it in front of representatives of the companies that fund RMI, or has he changed or discarded it?Sovietologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099598091505738702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-80006420401360719072007-10-30T06:18:00.000-07:002007-10-30T06:18:00.000-07:00Now, I don't exactly think Lovins is dishonest or ...Now, I don't exactly think Lovins is dishonest or intentionally misleads. He's saying what he believes, and when he talks about efficiency, he's either (a) correct or (b) not even wrong, depending on how you look at it.<BR/><BR/>He is making a correct statement when he says that people conserve automatically when faced with high prices; this is basic economics and we have 110 canceled nukes in the US to make that point. When he says that conservation obviates alternatives, he is likewise completely correct.<BR/>To the extent that established energy interests' purposes are served by preventing alternatives from attaining economies of scale, they realize that he is correct in making the previous statement and that this affects their business case, generally positively. In general, also, he is correct that it is easier and cheaper to cover a given shortfall with conservation than developing alternatives.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, and this is where it gets into "not even wrong" territory, his approach isn't sustainable. His approach rests on everybody making stupid, short-sighted business decisions inside the framework of Jevons' Paradox, which businesspeople unfortunately tend to do. As such, his approach produces valid results most of the time, except when he tries to implement alternatives in the same framework (which he of course cannot do because it is designed to prevent the development of those alternatives).<BR/><BR/>He honestly and truly believes that conservation is the best way to go because it's easy, and asks why nuclear power can't out-conserve conservation. In other words, he gives Greens a business case that works in the real world, but not for a good reason, so Greens and micro-optimization-oriented (read: too scared to innovate) businesspeople like him, and other policy people generally don't.Stewart Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05558095937453599908noreply@blogger.com