The mysterious springs of the RE rebound effect

[Christophe]

You are very optimistic, to raise the level of the seas for our children and grandchildren of 70m inevitably in the next millennium !!!
Exactly as inescapable, as the 120m of ascent there is between the 15000 7000 past!

Uh that would not be a subject matter?

[sspid14]

The + 10% per degree was the figure announced in the magazine. But we speak more often of 7% indeed. And as Christophe says, this value can change depending on the case.

2) partially false, especially that certain expenses precede the economy: house insulation, boiler change, purchase of a new vehicle, etc.

Most people will only make a higher investment if the return on investment is higher and therefore a greater gain of money in the end which will be reinvested in ... CO2 or other. Example: they will allow themselves to go a little further on vacation or more often.
This is the rebound effect ...

But on the other hand, we would do well to encourage some (eg Chinese) to make products more solid, so more expensive. They would sell less, with more profits: the equation can be rebalanced in the win-win mode.

Why encourage the Chinese, for example, to produce differently if the demand, for example from Europeans, is there? It is better to do the opposite and encourage Europeans to consume more solid.
But doesn't consuming more solid require more energy and materials?

The consumption of good is not very good for our land, is it not better to consume services. Example: massages to relax

[elephant]

sspid 14 said (with reason)

It is better to do the opposite and encourage Europeans to consume more solid.
But does not consuming more solid require more energy and material

It seems very difficult to me because of the price call: many people:

either buy because they are offered an extremely low price
either buy the cheapest because they don't have a lot of money

But, assuming that the cheaper products are more expensive because they are more robust ....

you relaunch the (healthy) competition and we buy for other criteria: prettier, better suited, etc ...

That said, Europeans are sometimes crazy: for equal functionality a Neumann microphone (KM140) is certainly better than a Behringer (C-2) but 30 times more expensive! And not much more solid.

[dedeleco]

Uh that would not be a subject matter?

No, since we want to reduce the growth of CO2 and it is impossible in reality with this observation:

All the money we save in energy, we will spend it elsewhere ... and as each expense is an impact on the environment and resources ... it is a circle that can be very vicious ...

and with this vicious, the CO2 continues to explode so that the sea level will rise, inexorably, once crossed the threshold, which is ill-defined, but low, because the climate of the earth is unstable, more and more, over the last million years !!!

[sspid14]

The rebound effect is neither optimistic nor pessimistic ... It is an observation that despite the efforts of some, the inertia of this CO2 growth is quite difficult to stop. At best, pollution is out of place ...

If for example Belgium manages to reduce these oil imports, it will be to the benefit of the Chinese who will be able to consume more.

Until there is a profound change in this society it will continue to increase.

Personally, I am naturally optimistic and tell myself that it will change one day * (I hope not too late) and that the day when this decrease appears, there will be a momentum that will make it decrease even faster. But sometimes when I see the world around me, I tell myself that there are many who have nothing to do with it.

* in my opinion this change will happen when oil becomes scarce and expensive ...

[aerialcastor]

You can still "spend better" your money, for example by buying products that are more respectful of humans (working conditions) and the environment (pollution), which are often more expensive.

We can also "work less to live more".

[Christine]

We can also "work less to live more".

But as in our society "to live" is equated with "to consume" ...
... and that consuming does not fill the existential void
... it is not work that prevents you from living
... it's just not having learned to live

[Obamot]

+1 (000 ...) to both of you *

It is undoubtedly for that in certain countries, that the legislator wanted to buy the energy production of the private individuals ... Thus there would be means to regulate the energy consumption by the price.

A tariff scale with variable geometry would then be required.
Below a certain quota, energy would be cheap per individual, beyond the amount would be exponential. Even if on the other hand, it would be unfair to tax someone who has already made the effort to produce / accumulate his own energy (so not so simple in practice to find equity ...)

Because we could say that this would mean giving the rich the right to pollute and creating a social divide according to energy consumption. But this argument falls, because it is already the case (the one who has a large displacement, a greedy 4x4, etc. consumes more, but it necessarily pays more, and not everyone has the means to 'acquire this type of vehicle) ... There we could make the tariff distinction by surcharging everything that is of fossil or nuclear origin.

In this perspective, it would be very incentive to do work in order to save energy, or even to harvest / produce its energy.
Thus, whoever produces his own energy would pay nothing up to the quota (to allow him to depreciate his installation).

But above all, it's an educational problem ... Exactly!
For many of us, it would not come to the idea of ​​consuming more because it is free, we only consume because we need it, and we look at the expenditure then, is that it?

* PS: I also really like what Aerialcastor said.

[Did67]

We can also "work less to live more".

But as in our society "to live" is equated with "to consume" ...
... and that consuming does not fill the existential void
... it is not work that prevents you from living
... it's just not having learned to live

Basically, indeed, our behaviors are pretty stupid. Take the reversible air conditioning test, in a collective public space (where interested parties do not pay). You tie up the zapette (remote control)

Inevitably:

a) in summer: the air conditioning is in air conditioning position, the temperature displays 19 or 20 °

b) in winter, the air conditioning is in heating mode, the temperature displays 25 ° ...

Explain to me by what remarkable spirit of collective condtriction, we need 19 ° in summer but 25 or 27 in winter ????

Now, I hasten to add that no one has to be stupid ... MY office is climbed to 27 ° (afterwards, I am in cardiac distress) and heated to 21 ° (despite a "cold foot" continuous and painful due to beta blockers ...). And when I drive with my C1 instead of the C5, I continue to try to consume the least, by personal challenge ... And I divide the consumption almost by two (about 5 l of LPG equivalent to 4 l of gasoline at 100).

More seriously: we can replace consumption with low energy consumption (and low CO²fères) with consumption that is, at constant budget. Just one example: burning fuel in your boiler or building a wooden terrace with the savings made by switching to pellets, this is not neutral ...

I think that the rebound depends a lot on motivation: when I read all the debates on the "profitability" of a given heating solution compared to another, we are already on a lot of "money" ... No wonder the rebound either at the end! Heating is "a necessary evil", not an activity that is judged by its profitability !!! If the motivation is to be the "less bad", it is not the same.

More seriously also, if the total consumption increases while each house consumes less, it is also because we are more numerous ...

[sspid14]

Inevitably:

a) in summer: the air conditioning is in air conditioning position, the temperature displays 19 or 20 °

b) in winter, the air conditioning is in heating mode, the temperature displays 25 ° ...

Explain to me by what remarkable spirit of collective condtriction, we need 19 ° in summer but 25 or 27 in winter ????

This can be explained in part by the fact that the displayed temperature does not take into account all the factors for a feeling of well-being:
- Non-insulated walls, windows, ... become cold in winter -> feeling of cold by cold walls
- Cold drafts while in summer it is hot.
- the humidity level can also vary.
- ...