4 ms·

I upvoted this review because I thought that Smil's book was quite good as a history and I was only half way through reading the review. The second half of the

I upvoted this review because I thought that Smil's book was quite good as a history and I was only half way through reading the review. The second half of the review takes a surprising turn toward "WTF Happened in 1971" and excoriating energy efficiency.

sanderjd 3y ago
Yeah the second half is really weird. It seems to suddenly take the proposition "more energy is good" and conclude that "energy inefficiency is good" follows. Both energy abundance and efficiency are good; efficiency is a multiplier of the positive effects of increased abundance. The detachment of energy use per capita from gdp per capita after the 70s is a good thing. That gap is pure upside, where each unit increase of energy is strictly more valuable than it would otherwise have been. In general, I find this false dichotomy between efficiency and abundance so maddening. Why not both??
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Does he say Edison was a horrible inventor because the electric light bulb was so much more efficient than the oil lamp?
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    He doesn't say that, but it's a claim that would be consistent with his argument in the second half of the piece. Despite being obviously ridiculous.