3 ms·

What Low-Tech Magazine is talking about is not mysterious or sinister. They advocate for reducing energy use, especially in developed nations, in order to reduc

What Low-Tech Magazine is talking about is not mysterious or sinister. They advocate for reducing energy use, especially in developed nations, in order to reduce the difficulty of transitioning to renewable energy on a short enough timescale to avoid climate catastrophe. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/how-much-energy-do-we-need.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/how-much-energy-do-w...

danans 6y ago
The issue with Low-Tech-Magazine is the ludicrous way they advocate to lower energy use, by abandoning higher efficiency technology altogether, i.e: "There are several ways to escape from the parallel universe of energy efficiency. First, while energy efficiency hinders significant long term reduction in energy demand through the need for equivalence of service, the opposite also holds true – making everything less energy efficient would reverse the growth in energy services and reduce energy demand" "Likewise, if an “energy inefficiency policy” were to mandate the use of inefficient central heating boilers, heating large homes to present-day comfort standards would be unaffordable for most people. They would be forced to find alternative solutions to achieve thermal comfort, for instance heating only one room, dressing more warmly, using personal heating devices, or moving to a smaller home." https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-efficiency.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-... It almost reads like marketing copy from the oil industry. A far more sensible way to handle this is not to return to 1960s ICEs for cars and oil powered central heating boilers for heating (with all their associated local pollution damage), but rather to price renewable electricity appropriately to ensure efficient consumption by having rapidly increasing price tiers for higher usage consumers and time-of-use pricing based on supply and demand. This already happens in many places. This should also satisfy the requirements of those who wish impose a type of "noble hardship" upon the population, as it still subjects them (via pricing correlated with weather events) to the vagaries of nature, including weather (want to set your AC to 65 at 4PM during a heat wave, without a medical requirement? No problem, that will be $0.80/kWh). Also, remember that the cost of producing renewable electricity is not based on the the marginal cost of generating it, but on the capital cost of building and financing it. That cost will drop, but it isn't going to zero any time soon. What is needed is for renewable+storage to drop in cost below the that of fossil fuels. We're almost there.
- skyfaller 6y ago
  Yeah, I'll admit that this proposal to decrease energy efficiency in our technology is insanity. One major problem with it is that under capitalism polluters don't pay the true cost of the damage they do and very dangerous technology can be quite affordable. While I understand this proposal as merely listing an option and taking the argument to its logical conclusion, I can see why it could make you not take the rest of the article or website seriously. I found the rest of the article and website very thoughtful and detailed with extensive sources, so I forgive the handful of batty positions taken because I find everything else to be useful data, historical research, and exercises in lateral thinking. It's clear to me that most people do not take the climate crisis seriously enough and seem to believe that we can continue acting exactly as we always have, while mere technological innovation will solve it. Low-Tech Mag generally advances solutions that are/were designed for a world where energy is expensive, and I find that quite compelling because that is the world we now live in, whether people realize it or not.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  This whole “reduce energy efficiency to reduce demand” business sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox in reverse.

danans 6y ago

The issue with Low-Tech-Magazine is the ludicrous way they advocate to lower energy use, by abandoning higher efficiency technology altogether, i.e: "There are several ways to escape from the parallel universe of energy efficiency. First, while energy efficiency hinders significant long term reduction in energy demand through the need for equivalence of service, the opposite also holds true – making everything less energy efficient would reverse the growth in energy services and reduce energy demand" "Likewise, if an “energy inefficiency policy” were to mandate the use of inefficient central heating boilers, heating large homes to present-day comfort standards would be unaffordable for most people. They would be forced to find alternative solutions to achieve thermal comfort, for instance heating only one room, dressing more warmly, using personal heating devices, or moving to a smaller home." https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-efficiency.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-... It almost reads like marketing copy from the oil industry. A far more sensible way to handle this is not to return to 1960s ICEs for cars and oil powered central heating boilers for heating (with all their associated local pollution damage), but rather to price renewable electricity appropriately to ensure efficient consumption by having rapidly increasing price tiers for higher usage consumers and time-of-use pricing based on supply and demand. This already happens in many places. This should also satisfy the requirements of those who wish impose a type of "noble hardship" upon the population, as it still subjects them (via pricing correlated with weather events) to the vagaries of nature, including weather (want to set your AC to 65 at 4PM during a heat wave, without a medical requirement? No problem, that will be $0.80/kWh). Also, remember that the cost of producing renewable electricity is not based on the the marginal cost of generating it, but on the capital cost of building and financing it. That cost will drop, but it isn't going to zero any time soon. What is needed is for renewable+storage to drop in cost below the that of fossil fuels. We're almost there.

skyfaller 6y ago
Yeah, I'll admit that this proposal to decrease energy efficiency in our technology is insanity. One major problem with it is that under capitalism polluters don't pay the true cost of the damage they do and very dangerous technology can be quite affordable. While I understand this proposal as merely listing an option and taking the argument to its logical conclusion, I can see why it could make you not take the rest of the article or website seriously. I found the rest of the article and website very thoughtful and detailed with extensive sources, so I forgive the handful of batty positions taken because I find everything else to be useful data, historical research, and exercises in lateral thinking. It's clear to me that most people do not take the climate crisis seriously enough and seem to believe that we can continue acting exactly as we always have, while mere technological innovation will solve it. Low-Tech Mag generally advances solutions that are/were designed for a world where energy is expensive, and I find that quite compelling because that is the world we now live in, whether people realize it or not.
pmiller2 6y ago
This whole “reduce energy efficiency to reduce demand” business sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox in reverse.