The mysterious springs of the RE rebound effect

[Grelinette]

"the-mysterious-springs-of-the-rebound-effect-of-enr"

In fact we must first agree on what the term "Rec" means.

For my part, when I hear about Enr, I understand that it relates to 3 points:

1) they are sources of energy that are quickly replenished (renewable)

2) they are non-polluting sources of energy (or less than those usually used)

3) they are energy sources that save money

I pass on points 1) and 2) which seem to me more difficult to demonstrate when we are not specialists.

For point 3), a priori it seems easier to demonstrate for the basic consumer than I am: if I install a wood stove, solar panels or a wind turbine, it should allow me to spend less. I know because it is written on the ads I receive every day in my mailbox!
I doubt it a little (if the ads told the truth it would be known), but hey ... let's admit.

In short, if I spend less is that I consume less, suddenly I contribute seriously to the decline of our consumer society, and that's not good for the economy!

It is therefore imperative to compensate for this heavy financial loss for the national economy by increasing other expenses, and this is the origin of this "rebound effect".

Clearly, the "rebound effect" is not an unconscious initiative of the basic consumer who lets himself go, but the result of the commercial and marketing actions of the companies (and indirectly of the state) which must recover from the turnover. deal with publicity stunt, recommendations and other tips for the basic consumer.

QED

[Ahmed]

Grelinette wrote, as a conclusion to his third point:

In short, if I spend less is that I consume less, suddenly I contribute seriously to the decline of our consumer society, and that's not good for the economy!

There is no need to invoke the rebound effect here!
Indeed, those who offer us these savings of use most of the time we are tied to heavy initial investments *; clearly it is ruinous to save money ...
In this case the economy (without "S") is not harmed, quite the contrary: it thrives on your ruin ...

The real question then would be this: what is good for the economy is it good for you?

* A company (now defunct) offered to heat itself with "free energy from the air", in fact a rudimentary heat pump system, very expensive.

[Macro]

Indeed, those who offer us these savings of use most of the time we are tied to heavy initial investments *; clearly it is ruinous to save money ...
In this case the economy (without "S") is not harmed, quite the contrary: it thrives on your ruin ...
.

And it is actually for the moment the impression that I have of all these products sold to save energy ...
And still happy that I have not scrapped my old cars almost depolluting against so-called clean cars ...

I frankly have the clear impression that we especially want to chain us to a product and punctuate us through it ...

[Did67]

Indeed, we had already once addressed somewhere the question of what is "green", renewable, etc ...

In the restricted, renewable sense, this is what is reproduced: wood, the sun, the wind ...

But the sustainability concept also includes economic, social, etc. aspects.

For my part, I mentioned it above, it is also necessary to examine if a solution is generalizable (if not, it is good, but useless to promote it).

Finally, my thinking is not "for" or "against" the economy.

So, when I buy a pellet boiler, I work the economy; Anyway, ayaon chose not to be marginal, I participate in the economy. Even if I don't consume, as soon as I work, I participate in the economy. Besides, my savings would feed the banks that would invest, so I would still participate in the economy.

So this seems to me a false problem (even if I completely respect those who choose a marginality, even radical).

So I buy a very expensive pellet condensing boiler so that the renewable resource "wood" is burned in a "sustainable" way (that is, with a minimum of rejects). So I even pay more than a gas boiler, so I participate more in the economy.

To be clear, we would have to reason each time:

a) renewable or not
b) generalizable to the greatest number or not
c) what footprint (discharges in operation, recycling, gray energies during manufacturing)

To return to my case, the pellet boiler is very good to fairly good on all 3 criteria: the pellets are renewable; the potential of the French forest would make it possible to heat a very important park (especially if one gave up "wasting" the logs by burning them badly from chimneys or poorly conducted stoves); its emissions are real, slightly higher than for fuel oil, significantly more than gas ...

My C1 at LPG is zero in a) (LPG is fossil); it is very average in b) (LPG is a by-product of petroleum distillation, so there is a small proportion - it is impossible to replace everyone's gasoline!); it is very good in c) (comparable to an electric vehicle in terms of emissions if we count the releases to make electricity outside nuclear) ...

Like what when you take the cabbage, it's not simple at all.

But I still think it is a positive spiral: I have divided our consumption of fossil C by more than two (therefore our emissions of fossil CO²); I reduced our particulate emissions by spending roughly what a household spends buying an "average" car and a conventional boiler (fuel or gas).

It is in this sense that the initial postula ("rebound effect" so it is useless) annoys me a little ...

[Ahmed]

Although I think it is necessary, for the sake of personal coherence, to make coincide (as much as possible) his daily practice with his convictions, the fact remains that if we consider things globally, the ecology as it occurs both in speeches and in official acts, appears to be a vast illusion.

Religious admonitions and guilt-inducing in the North, CO2 to everything goes to the South!

The coexistence of scruffy scruples in Europe for everything related to the environment and its opposite in China, India does not seem to me to be simple phase shift or unwelcome chance; no, because these contradictions exist with us too.

The error would be to think that little by little "virtuous" practices (sic!) Will supplant the old ones in the name of a supposed dynamic of history, in reality the two are condemned to coexist since the ENR are only an extension of the market and not a real change.
You declare oh Did67 that:

Finally, my thinking is not "for" or "against" the economy.

and you specify that "it seems to you a false problem".
Yet this is the crux of the problem, economism has invaded our brains as much as the economy invests our lives, it is so totalizing that those who "make the choice of even a radical marginality" cultivate only illusion of escaping it (and serve to accredit the idea of ​​a possible escape!).

[Did67]

Indeed, those who offer us these savings of use most of the time we are tied to heavy initial investments *; clearly it is ruinous to save money ...
In this case the economy (without "S") is not harmed, quite the contrary: it thrives on your ruin ...

I was giving my opinion on this.

As if "hurting the economy" was an end in itself? That's how I understood it ... As if the investments were an obstacle in itself ...

This is not my opinion.

Here. Then we can discuss.

There will be those who will fight / militate for economies to change, without necessarily changing their individual actions ... I respect. And sometimes admire (when done properly, and with panache).

There are those who wait for economies to change and meanwhile change nothing ...

For me, changing the savings will take way too long, I'll be dead before. So I act at a minimum, so that the day I am put in the hole, I can rest in peace ... In the mass of "investments" that I make, on the scale of my budget, I sort according to criteria given above ... I don't get anything perfect, far from it. But it's a little less worse ... It would be enough for a few million French people to reduce their electricity consumption by 25% for EdF to begin "mechanically" an exit from nuclear power. The oldest plants would no longer be profitable !!

[Ahmed]

If "injuring" the economy is obviously not an end in itself, by weakening it and above all by contesting it (because it only draws its nuisance from our consent) this could be a good way to that it hurts us less ...

[Grelinette]

As long as the ecology, renewable energies and everything related to it remains a means more than a finality, it will be difficult to make things change.

We learn every day that the real purpose of all human actions today remains unfortunately, over and over again, the financial interest, be it ecology, health, education, politics, ...

[Obamot]

Or you must have bought a Chinese slave ...

These quasi-racist remarks, are punishable criminally today ... It would be enough that someone files a complaint against you (and this is not the first time, this theme is recurrent in your home).

Not long ago you made us understand your hatred of the Chinese, just because they were in the process of "taking their share of an economic pie" from which they were long excluded. Whose fault is it, if not the West, which with its big feet:
- wanted so much to promote the "globalizationSometimes by arms - and now what would you want? To transform yourself into a neo-colonio-racist to make the Chinese "slaves" ... Where are you with such contradictions ...? Should know!
- has only continued to show the bad example (if not the worst) of consumerism at all costs, and which goes so far as to use crime to plunder raw materials ...
- has long believed in its omnipotence, but has never ceased to order products in China by paying for them peanut, to sell them at a high price on the European and American markets, with a nice added value! (As Ahmed rightly says, it is with "our consent" that they have imposed their products on our markets ...)

What would you say if the Chinese said the same thing as you, that they "would buy white slaves". Your comments are truly scandalous!

[Did67]

If "injuring" the economy is obviously not an end in itself, by weakening it and above all by contesting it (because it only draws its nuisance from our consent) this could be a good way to that it hurts us less ...

OK. With all due respect: this is exactly where we do not agree.

I think that the first Neanderthal man (or I don't know what) realized that he was very good at fishing; that his cousin realized that he was a remarkable berry picker, they invented the economy: one specialized in fishing, the other in spoon. They first exchanged by barter.

Distant cousins ​​invented money ... and therefore perfected the economy ...

I therefore think that we must still "pre-select" the economy to integrate the ecological footprint and ensure that our activities are compatible with the capacity of the earth to regenerate ... It must be improved so that " economic agents "are also directly responsible for damage, social, natural, etc ...

I don't think that "injuring" (in the sense of destroying) is an approach, even if on many points (traders, speculation, etc.), it will be necessary to go back ...