[I highly recommend a recent a report by Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets who documents the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, also known as the Jevons Paradox where greater energy efficiency may result in increased energy consumption and resultant Green House Gas emissions.
Currently the ICT industry is largely focused on energy efficiency as the primary mechanism for limiting the impact of ICT on global warming. I argue in an upcoming paper that this may be a wrong headed approach (draft copies of this paper are available on request). To avoid the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate it may be necessary for the ICT industry to focus on a "zero carbon" strategy as opposed to energy efficiency. It is my belief that the ICT has the technological ability to target a zero carbon strategy through the use of next generation optical Internet networks linking zero carbon data centers, hosting clouds and grids using latest Web 2.0 and SOA applications. -- BSA]
Does Energy Efficiency Save Energy? http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/snov07.pdf
"Much is being banked on the notion that
improvements in energy efficiency will be the
answer to both oil depletion and greenhouse
gas emissions. But is it a realistic economic
premise that technological change can
reduce energy usage, and by implication, its
carbon trail?
The OPEC oil shocks spawned huge
improvements in energy efficiency, particularly
insofar as oil was concerned. But three
decades later, we find that the net effect of
all of those efficiency initiatives has been to
increase the world’s appetite for crude. While
oil per unit of GDP has fallen impressively in
large energy-consuming economies like the
United States, total oil consumption, and
indeed, total energy consumption, continue
to grow by leaps and bounds. The increase
in energy usage has dwarfed the gains in
economic efficiency. Hence, instead of
capping energy demand, what we observe
is that improvements in energy efficiency
lead to ever and ever-greater levels of energy
usage.
Following the OPEC oil shocks, a few renegade
economists argued that improvements
in energy efficiency would perversely
lead to increases in energy demand. The
Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, as it has
come to be known, is based on the standard
substitution and income effects that result
from any change in the price of a good. The
standard theory of the consumer argues
that a reduction in energy costs (due to
improvements in energy efficiency) can
lead to an increase, not a decline, in energy
demand. Moreover, to the extent that
overall economic growth would benefit from
cheaper energy prices, there is an additional
macroeconomic stimulus to energy demand,
all contributing to a very powerful rebound
effect. The postulate suggests that energy
intensity targets, commonplace in most
countries’ energy strategies, are effectively
incapable of limiting future growth in
either energy-demand growth or carbon
emissions.
To date, there has only been one sure-fire
way of reducing energy consumption—
shrink the economy. But even small
reductions in the level of global GDP would
lever huge increases in human hardship.
But at the same time, reducing energy
consumption per unit of GDP has not been a
viable policy option. From gasoline demand
to the energy requirements of the average
American home, the legacy of energyefficiency
improvements is ever-greater
energy consumption (see pages 4-7).
In the past, the efficiency paradox has
been used as an argument against efforts
to promote greater energy efficiency and
conservation. That is not our intention here.
On the contrary, for a world facing the
twin challenges of oil depletion and global
climate change, there has never been a
more urgent need for both. But in order for
total efficiency to actually curb total energy
usage, as opposed to energy intensity,
consumers must be kept from reaping the
benefits of those initiatives in ever-greater
energy consumption. Otherwise, energy
usage will be the beneficiary of our best
efforts towards greater energy efficiency.
The road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
Green IT/Broadband and Cyber-infrastructure Overview
One of the greatest threats to our future society and economy is global warming. It is estimated that the CO2 emissions of the ICT industry alone exceeds the carbon output of the entire aviation industry. The ICT industry and research community has a collective responsibility to help address this problem. Fortunately, as compared to the aviation industry, the ICT industry and research community has the tools at hand to reduce its direct CO2 output to zero and the additional capability of enabling other sectors of society to reduce their carbon footprint through "Carbon rewards" rather than unpopular "Carbon taxes". Governments around the world are wrestling with the challenge of how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The current preferred approaches are to impose “carbon” taxes and implement various forms of cap and trade or carbon offset systems. However another approach to help reduce carbon emission is to “reward” those who reduce their carbon footprint. It is estimated that consumers control or influence over 60% of all CO2 emissions. As such, one possible reward system of trading “bits and bandwidth for carbon”, or sometimes called "gCommerce" is to provide homeowners with free fiber to the home or free wireless products and other electronic services such as ebooks and eMovies if they agree to pay a premium on their energy consumption which will encourage them to reduce emissions by turning down the thermostat or using public transportation. Not only does the consumer benefit, but this business model also provides new revenue opportunities for network operators, optical equipment manufacturers, and eCommerce application providers.
Universities can also play a significant leadership role as cyber-infrastructure is one of the major producers of CO2 emissions at our universities. Although cyber-infrastructure is part of the problem, it can also be part of the solution. The beauty of cyber-infrastructure and ICT in general, is that thanks to high speed optical networks, this equipment can be located virtually anywhere. Relocating cyber-infrastructure computers, databases, instrumentation and laboratory equipment to remote renewable energy sites not only helps the environment but can also save the institution significant money in their energy bills. More importantly such a strategy also allows the university or researcher to earn valuable carbon offset dollars. A good example of this strategy is the PROMPT initiative "Next Generation Internet to Reduce Global Warming (G-NGI)" where researchers and institutions can earn valuable offset dollars for Internet technologies and process that reduce CO2 emissions. Universities can also encourage students and faculty to reduce their respective carbon footprint by also implementing a "gCommerce" reward system such as free eTextbooks, free downloads of video and music in exchange for students paying a premium on parking, travel and other related activities.
For more details please see
Free Fiber and High Speed Internet to the Home Initiative
http://free-fiber-to-the-home.blogspot.com/
ICT and Global Warming - opportunities for innovation and economic growth
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbgjrct_2767dxpbdvcf
PROMPT Next Generation Internet to Reduce Global Warming
http://www.promptinc.org/documents/NGI_release_en_v2.pdf
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
I would suggest that energy efficiency is not the problem. We need carbon taxes, with the tax being set at whatever is needed to achieve the desired level of CO2 emissions.
This will drive us towards less dependency on fossil fuels and make the alternatives more attractive.
You can see my blog on this topic at http://networkmusings.blogspot.com/2007/11/carbon-taxes-or-cap-and-trade-for.html
Post a Comment