Efficiency Works Forever  

TreeHugger has a good post up today on the enduring value of energy efficiency efforts. Dealing with oil depletion will be much easier if people focus on reducing consumption and consuming energy more efficiently than endlessly chasing other energy sources while wasting as much energy as they can afford to buy.

This is a small editorial about something that might seem obvious to some, but that is too often left out from public debate. To go straight to the point: Efficiency and conservation should be at the top of the list of solutions to our energy problems.

Why? Because before we build new production capacity, we should use what we already have. It's common sense. There is so much wasted energy that we already pay to produce that it would be foolish to pay again to produce more before addressing that problem. That energy is already there, just waiting to be used for something. Here are the arguments I can think up in favor of efficiency and conservation:

1) After the initial investment, there are no additional costs for fuel or maintenance...

I also noticed a good article in the Seattle Times (while reading an updated post on WorldChanging about "Green China") called "Asleep at the energy switch", which looks at the wasted opportunity the latest US energy bill represents and 3 measures which would really make a difference to both oil depletion and global warming: energy-efficiency, green roofs and local cogeneration of electricity.

The lawmakers have been attacked for their $8.5 billion worth of tax breaks for oil, coal, gas and electric companies. Critics say they knuckled under to Detroit by failing to enact new fuel-efficiency standards (including any meaningful coverage for gas-lapping SUVs). They're hit for being as indifferent about global warming as President Bush, refusing any tough new action to tax or cap utilities' emissions of carbon dioxide. And there's no question: Despite Mideast turbulence and India and China roaring onto the global energy market, the bill does nothing to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil (now 58 percent of our consumption, headed to 68 percent by 2025).

In fairness, the new energy bill does allocate about $1.3 billion to efficiency and conservation programs, plus $3 billion for renewable sources, mostly tax breaks for wind turbines. But Congress couldn't muster the votes to set a requirement of 10-percent renewables (wind, solar, biomass) in our electric-generation stream within the next 15 years. The European Union, by contrast, is struggling — but still aiming — to achieve 22.1 percent from renewable sources in 2010.

And check out our new super-competitor — China. Growing pell-mell, it is already one of the world's leading polluters and faces immense environmental challenges. But the Chinese will start their first offshore wind-power complex next year; they're building the world's largest tidal-energy project; they're implementing auto-fuel standards more stringent than the United States. On top of all that, they've undertaken a massive solar-energy program, according to the Web site worldchanging.com. By the end of 2010, Beijing expects all Chinese cities to reduce their buildings' energy use by 50 percent, and by 2020, 65 percent.

With official Washington asleep at the switch, what should our states and communities do?

Three interesting candidates spring to mind: energy-efficiency measures, green roofs and local cogeneration of electricity...