Human behavior sabotages CO2-reducing strategies

The “rebound effect” negates benefits of policies aimed at improving efficiency and renewable energy sources in the residential sectorPeer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

IMAGE: LAZARUS ADUA, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, STANDS IN FRONT OF SOLAR PANELS ARRAY IN RESEARCH PARK NEAR THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. view more CREDIT: DAVE TITENSOR/UNIVERSITY OF UTAH

For the past 150 years, humans have pumped extraordinary amounts of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, into the atmosphere and warmed the planet at an alarming rate. To slow down climate change, societies tend to focus on two solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: improving energy efficiency and developing and using renewable energy sources. United States President Joe Biden’s climate agenda includes a large effort to upgrade buildings to be more efficient and proposes investing billions of dollars for clean energy research. But are these strategies working as we expect?

A new study by University of Utah researchers compared every U.S. state’s CO2 emissions with their investment in the two solutions from 2009 to 2016. The authors found no statistically significant difference between energy efficiency improvement and renewable energy development—both resulted in some reductions in CO2 emissions when considering all societal sectors, although renewable energy investment was slightly more impactful.

The findings revealed two surprises. First, state governments’ policies aimed at helping consumers improve energy efficiency had no effect on CO2 emission. Rather, states with economy-wide lower energy input per each unit of economic output (per capita gross domestic product, GDP) emitted lower levels of the greenhouse gas. Second, investment in renewable energy sources led to increased levels of CO2 emissions in the residential sector. These outcomes are evidence of a well-known phenomenon called the rebound effect that describes when people respond to saving energy by consuming more, negating the benefit of CO2 reduction.

“Lots of energy analysts tend to look at emissions as a technical problem that requires a technical solution; build more efficient vehicles, build homes to use less energy. What they don’t consider is human behavior. If you’ve got a hybrid car, the money you save on gas might allow you to drive more,” said the study’s lead author Lazarus Adua, assistant professor of sociology at the U. “My goal here is to let policymakers know that this rebound effect is a problem, and they need to address it. If you’re only paying attention to improving efficiency and investing in renewables, you’re not going to solve the problem.”

The study was published on Aug. 25, 2021, in the journal Global Environmental Change. Karen Xuan Zhang and Brett Clark of the Department of Sociology at the U were co-authors.

Energy efficiency improvement and renewable energy production

To assess each state’s energy efficiency improvement investment, the authors used two measures. The first is the American Council on an Energy-Efficient Economy’s scoring of U.S. states on policy initiatives aimed at improving energy efficiency in households or other buildings. The second is the state’s economic output per each British Thermal Unit (BTU) of energy consumed. This reveals how efficiently the economy uses energy to produce every dollar of GDP. To assess renewable energy production, Adua and his team calculated the proportion of a state’s total energy consumption from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal or hydropower.

They analyzed each solution’s impact on CO2 emissions across four sectors individually— residential, commercial, industrial, transportation—and the impact across all sectors combined. 

The findings show that a 1% improvement of the economic output per BTU results in reduced CO2 emissions in residential, industrial and transportation sectors, confirming that overall improvement in production efficiency across society is beneficial. There’s no rebound effect because an individual probably won’t notice if they save money due to a more efficient economy. In contrast, a state’s energy efficiency policy scores had no statistical effect on CO2 emissions in any of the sectors. This is probably because they worked too well to save residents money and may have encouraged them to consume more elsewhere, Adua said.

Renewable energy had a more complicated story. The study found that increasing renewable energy by 1%, resulted in a 0.69% reduction in CO2 when all sectors were combined. However, the residential sector on its own had the opposite result—a 1% increase in the amount of renewable energy led to a 0.36% increase in CO2 emissions. On the surface, the result seems counterintuitive. But to sociologist Adua, it makes perfect sense.

“It’s unexpected, but it’s not very surprising given what I know about human attitudes towards consumption and the use of resources. When people think they are already doing right for the environment, they begin to lose sight of other ways in which they harm the environment. They may also feel justified to consume a little bit more. And before you know it, the benefit of the solar panel is basically canceled out by increased consumption in other areas,” said Adua.

The next steps for Adua and the authors is to go deeper into some of the findings, focusing on the residential sector. With more funding, he’d like to conduct survey-type studies with respondents who have renewable energy at home versus those without it, and gauge their attitudes towards general environmental protection. Additionally, Adua is developing a book that breaks down the positives and negatives of proposed methods aimed at mitigating climate change, including tactics to physically remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

“Every climate change solution has consequences. Investment in renewables means that we must expand mining to get the metals needed for batteries. Some mines being proposed are on land sacred to Native Americans and could cause environmental pollution,” said Adua. “My goal is to provide policy makers with as much information as I can to make decisions about how to tackle the climate crisis.”

Adua reiterated that focusing solely on technical solutions will fail to solve the climate crisis. 

“We need to think about these solutions more holistically, you have to think about restructuring the society in ways that will make it more efficient overall,” said Adua. “But when you talk about structural change, people are just thinking, ‘that will destroy our way of life.’ But if we don’t solve that problem today, the environment will change our way of life for us. Maybe not our generation, but our descendants, the environment will change their way of life.”


JOURNAL

Global Environmental Change

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102351

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

Seeking a handle on climate change: Examining the comparative effectiveness of energy efficiency improvement and renewable energy production in the United States

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

25-Aug-2021

From EurekAlert!

3.9 9 votes
Article Rating
103 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
September 30, 2021 2:08 am

Behaviour of the elites sabotages CO2-reducing strategies

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have reportedly taken at least 21 private jets since the start of 2019

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Called Hypocritical For Flying 21 Private Jets in Two Years (newsweek.com)

That’s just one brash couple.

Last edited 2 months ago by fretslider
mikeyj
Reply to  fretslider
September 30, 2021 3:18 am

Brash doesn’t get close to what those two A-holes should be called.

fretslider
Reply to  mikeyj
September 30, 2021 3:23 am

I have some choice epithets for them, but let’s not sink to their level of [non] debate.

observa
Reply to  fretslider
September 30, 2021 9:07 pm

I think it’s ginger and whinger you’re looking for. Or as the Bard would say- How sharper than the serpent’s tooth tis to have a thankless child.

Ben Vorlich
September 30, 2021 2:18 am

So does nature.

From UK Financial Times. SSE plc formerly Scottish and Southern Energy plc.

SSE’s renewable energy output over spring and summer was almost a third lower than planned, as low winds and dry weather combined with high gas prices to push up energy prices.

https://www.ft.com/content/59c5459e-d542-44a7-86f0-a35d183d99b0

RickWill
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 30, 2021 4:25 am

SSE’s renewable energy output over spring and summer was almost a third lower than planned

In what way is random energy “planned”. It could be forecast but never planned.

Using the correct term for the RE acronym, Random Energy, makes it clear that it is something that cannot be “planned”. Getting the nomenclature correct helps in understanding the reality.

RE is unsustainable. Australia can only hope it takes a long while for the developed countries to lose the climate religion. Commodity prices a going vertical:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/coal-price?op=1
https://ycharts.com/indicators/europe_natural_gas_price

sendergreen
Reply to  RickWill
September 30, 2021 7:12 am

They are deceptively framing language to prevent being held responsible for predictable failures, and in the high pressure “sales pitch” they used to purchase and install all the “Green Energy” infrastructure in the first place. Similarly, be prepared for the sudden “surprise” coming when all the windmill parts have to be dealt with at the end of their short service lives. And the semi-secret warehouses of dead lithium batteries overflow.

n.n
Reply to  sendergreen
September 30, 2021 12:36 pm

Not to mention the rare earths, sparsely distributed, collected from near and far, but mostly far. The Green gauntlets and other artifacts of climate forward practices.

M Courtney
September 30, 2021 2:23 am

If you’ve got a hybrid car, the money you save on gas might allow you to drive more,” 

This argument sounds reasonable. But is it?

Are most journeys limited by the amount of petrol you can afford? Or are are they limited by having nowhere else you need to go?
In my experience I can afford to drive to Glasgow but have no wish to do so.

Same with heating. I can afford to put the heating up to 37°C so as I don’t need to waste food on warming myself. But I choose not to as that would be rather unpleasant.

The argument seems to work for luxuries. One can never have enough marmalade.
But most expenditure (in either carbon footprint or cash) is not a luxury.

Bernie1815
Reply to  M Courtney
September 30, 2021 3:58 am

Jumped out at me too. Seems to me that they are making unfounded assumptions about the behavior of individuals – and while in aggregate it does appear that hybrid cars are driven more per year than ICE vehicles, this does not mean that the owners of hybrid vehicles are driving more or less than they drove when they owned ICE vehicles. I do not know about others but the miles I drive are primarily determined by what I need to do.

RickWill
Reply to  Bernie1815
September 30, 2021 4:48 am

A high proportion of taxis are hybrid. That that distort the average distance travelled in a hybrid car.

I filled my diesel car twice in 2020. I enjoy not having to put fuel into it.

I became much more thoughtful about household energy use after installing solar panels and battery because I was aiming to maximise energy income. Everyone I know who has installed solar has become more knowledgable on their energy usage and tend to be more conservative than wasteful.

The give away in the story is:

The next steps for Adua and the authors is to go deeper into some of the findings, focusing on the residential sector. With more funding, he’d like to conduct survey-type studies 

Always more funding for better answer!

Bernie1815
Reply to  RickWill
September 30, 2021 6:18 am

Interesting. What are the odds that such a survey would capture and make visible the behavior that you exhibited.
As a survey designer of many years, I sincerely doubt it. It will be just a list of 50 or so Likert-type questions based on what the authors think they know about the issue. It is like running a medical experiment and never observing the patient. Plain dumb but it happens all the time.

sendergreen
Reply to  RickWill
September 30, 2021 8:44 am

Without Government and “Institutional” funding, the entire ediface of “CO2 Climate Change” would collapse within six months. In a generation it would be looked back on as one of the greatest follies in history.

And, it would be colder.

n.n
Reply to  sendergreen
September 30, 2021 12:45 pm

That’s the… their null hypothesis. The observation evidence suggests that CO2 is a lagging indicator, and that CO2 has a net neutral effect in the wild, which may explain the technically gross sensory, hypothetical (e.g. models), and inferential tolerance we are expected to accept on faith.

Oldseadog
Reply to  RickWill
September 30, 2021 9:10 am

Maybe the next steps for Adua and the authors might be to find out if CO2 actually controls the temperature and if so by how much.

Reply to  Bernie1815
September 30, 2021 9:40 am

Hybrid vehicles are driven more than average but a study done in California found that EVs are driven half of the average. EVs are supposedly cheaper to drive than ICE cars, so these authors would have predicted that they would be driven more than average. They aren’t. There’s a simple explanation – EVs are driven less because they’re inconvenient and less capable (small, few EV pickups and SUVs etc.) The other falsehood in this study is that investments in renewable energy save the consumer money. Many renewables are much more expensive than conventional energy.

Dennis
Reply to  meab
September 30, 2021 9:48 pm

Not a problem for the average driver but the car racing fanatics are very concerned about the transition to EV because electric motors and batteries have a serious heat build up problem when an EV is driven at racing speeds for long distance events.

And the weight of batteries to provide sufficient energy to race any distance weigh considerably more than fuel tank filled with liquid fuel.

The article did not mention Lithium ion exothermic reaction in a crash situation.

AndyHce
Reply to  Bernie1815
September 30, 2021 9:45 am

Look at it as the first propaganda steps towards preparing people’s minds for being forced to do what they want done.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  M Courtney
September 30, 2021 3:59 am

Can you get Seville Oranges? I have found it very difficult in recent years.

Very few people make their own these days and there’s nothing like homemade marmalade on toast.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 30, 2021 4:50 am

Very few people make their own these days and there’s nothing like homemade marmalade on toast.

I have my own orange tree, but I’d not consider making marmalade. Oranges are perfect on their own imo.

Bernie1815
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 30, 2021 4:53 am

If the price of marmalade went down, I would not consume more. However, if the price of marmalade went up significantly, I would likely consume less.

I am a Keiller’s Dundee Orange Marmalade fan. Here in Massachusetts I know of no acceptable and less expensive alternative.

bonbon
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 30, 2021 5:58 am

Try Koo marmalade from South Africa. The very best!

Mike Lowe
Reply to  bonbon
September 30, 2021 1:45 pm

My favourite, admittedly many years ago, was Frank Cooper’s Oxford Marmalade. Not sure if it is still made, but certainly not available here in New Zealand. Very chunky, and slightly bitter.

Fran
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 30, 2021 10:44 am

Seville oranges are available in late January and February in the northern hemisphere, imported from somewhere warmer. The do not keep well, so they are not available for long.
1 dozen Seville oranges: cut in half and scrape out the insides. Put the juice/seed/ect in the fridge. Slice the peel (I do it with the slicer of a Bosch kitchen machine). Cover peel with water and leave for at least 24h for pectin to be extracted. Put juice, ect in a muslin bag, add to peel and boil until peel is tender. Measure and add an equal amount of sugar. Boil fast until it jells. Bottle hot pack method.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  M Courtney
September 30, 2021 4:49 am

One can never have enough marmalade.

I have enough marmalade. That’s none at all. I must admit to very occasionally buying a jar if I find a particularly intense one, but generally, none is fine

sendergreen
Reply to  M Courtney
September 30, 2021 7:16 am

Just wait, the direction things are going suggests that soon most expenditures will : ( be a luxury.

Anon
Reply to  M Courtney
September 30, 2021 7:38 am

I don’t know if it is sound, but it has been around for almost two centuries:

Jevons Paradox

At that time(the beginning of the Industrial Revolution), many in Britain worried that coal reserves were rapidly dwindling, but some experts opined that improving technology would reduce coal consumption. Jevons argued that this view was incorrect, as further increases in efficiency would tend to increase the use of coal. Hence, improving technology would tend to increase the rate at which England’s coal deposits were being depleted, and could not be relied upon to solve the problem.

The Jevons paradox was first described by the English economist William Stanley Jevons in his 1865 book The Coal Question. Jevons observed that England’s consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced the Watt steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of the coal-fired steam engine from Thomas Newcomen’s earlier design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

I think the flaw lies in the belief that initial conditions are fixed and that the variables are independent?

Last edited 2 months ago by Anon
AndyHce
Reply to  Anon
September 30, 2021 9:57 am

Unlike a generation ago and earlier, many people apparently insist that going to a device (e.g. a TV) to turn it on and off is totally, undeniably, too terrible to contemplate.Therefore everything now uses standby power constantly. I suspect this has led to a not inconsiderable electrical energy use increase.

markopanama
Reply to  AndyHce
October 3, 2021 7:05 am

Anon, you are exactly right about Jevon’s paradox. For all energy using devices, improving efficiency enables previously marginal use cases that expand the market and increase energy consumption. Take portable radios when they used tubes. Expensive to operate, not many of them. The transistor improved efficiency by orders of magnitude and suddenly there were millions of portable radios, collectively consuming much more energy.

But the arrow of energy always and only points to more. All life forms, not just humans, are designed to harvest as much energy from the environment as possible as quickly as possible. Harvest less and you die. It’s a fundamental principle of life physics. Renewable energy will only add to our supplies and enable new uses, but never reduce the use of all available energy sources.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  M Courtney
September 30, 2021 8:32 am

I agree. If gas were free, I wouldn’t drive more miles per year than I do now. My driving driven by where I need to go. Well, maybe we’d drive out to see the in-laws in Montana, but it’s still a toss up because we’re trading off travel time for expense. Round trip would be at least 6-8 days with the kids, and if all I have are 14 vacation days, that’s a big bite versus 2 travel days by plane. So, no, no more extra driving.

What else is there? Leave the lights on 24-7, never turn off the TV? Well, with 2 teenagers in the house it seems that happens anyway, but still…

AndyHce
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
September 30, 2021 10:02 am

Once, when I was working, and thus had money (and prices were much lower), I had the best days of my life, which I dearly miss, by going to the mountains virtually every weekend, and hiking away from all the noise and bustle of mechanical life, frequently seeing not one other person the entire time. Then that became financially impossible.

pochas94
September 30, 2021 2:24 am

Cui bono?
Climate Change is an excellent wealth producing strategy.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  pochas94
September 30, 2021 2:56 am

You write: “Climate Change is an excellent wealth producing strategy.”

With some extension the correct/right version: “Climate Change is an excellent wealth producing strategy for a small number of interest groups, and means substantial wealth reduction for the overwhelming majority of people.”

Joao Martins
Reply to  Hari Seldon
September 30, 2021 3:08 am

You are right. It works while they are tiny, fluffy pets of the society. If their numbers increase, competition for the grub bowl will bite hard…

leowaj
Reply to  Hari Seldon
September 30, 2021 6:47 am

It fits neatly into the mantra: “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”

Reply to  leowaj
September 30, 2021 3:41 pm

leowaj
I prefer my – late night – reading of your comment –
“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.”
Thus –
“You’ll owe nothing and you’ll be happy.”

Auto
I know it doesn’t cover what our supposed betters want for OUR future, but – hey!


Gregory Woods
September 30, 2021 2:57 am

Proposing non-solutions to non-problems: A good gig, if you can get one…

Ron Long
Reply to  Gregory Woods
September 30, 2021 3:27 am

Good comment, Gregory. Professor Adua starts with the presumption that there is “climate change” and then wanders through an analysis where there is very little control of either data or analysis. He’s writing a book that will explore physically removing CO2 from the atmosphere? Be scared, be very scared.

Scissor
Reply to  Ron Long
September 30, 2021 4:14 am

There is everything to fear and almost nothing to be gained from the engineering solutions offered by sociologists.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Scissor
September 30, 2021 4:59 am

Especially those too inexperienced to spell “gases” correctly. Geoff S

Patrick B
Reply to  Ron Long
September 30, 2021 9:56 am

A professor of sociology – that rigorous science that only the brightest can understand. No technical education. Undergraduate degree in Ghana. Apparently Ghana is smart enough not to pay grifters like this guy.

https://faculty.utah.edu/u6013054-LAZARUS_ADUA/research/index.hml

Ouluman
Reply to  Gregory Woods
September 30, 2021 9:40 am

Great comment, and sums up the whole (non) debate.

Editor
September 30, 2021 3:03 am

“investment in renewable energy sources led to increased levels of CO2 emissions in the residential sector. These outcomes are evidence of a well-known phenomenon called the rebound effect that describes when people respond to saving energy by consuming more”

Huh? NO evidence is provided of any “rebound effect”, it is simply trotted out as an excuse for something they can’t explain.

“a 1% improvement of the economic output per BTU results in reduced CO2 emissions in residential, industrial and transportation sectors, confirming that overall improvement in production efficiency across society is beneficial. There’s no rebound effect because an individual probably won’t notice if they save money due to a more efficient economy. In contrast, a state’s energy efficiency policy scores had no statistical effect on CO2 emissions in any of the sectors. This is probably because they worked too well to save residents money and may have encouraged them to consume more elsewhere,”

re-Huh. I see no reason to suppose that an individual will notice one kind of money saving and not another. Certainly, NO evidence is provided.

We have a new phenomenon: selective rebound effect. NB. The consumer doesn’t do the selecting, only researchers do that. But it’s a truly powerful research tool: 1. make the right selections and you can explain just about anything, provided you get … 2. more funding.

oeman 50
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 30, 2021 8:10 am

This has happened to me. When I replaced incandescent bulbs with LEDs or fluorescents, I tended to go up in lumens because my wife likes more light. The sockets can easily handle the reduce wattage!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  oeman 50
September 30, 2021 8:41 am

Yes, but the key thing is, you are still consuming less electricity per fixture than before. You probably aren’t changing your pattern of usage, so where does the purported “rebound effect” come into the picture?

Editor
Reply to  oeman 50
September 30, 2021 1:44 pm

Up in lumens but down in wattage.

Peter W
Reply to  oeman 50
September 30, 2021 3:19 pm

We installed an electric clothes dryer, and using it instead of hanging our clothes on the back porch, our electric usage went down.

(I explained this with a post on a different WUWT article.)

mikeyj
September 30, 2021 3:15 am

Sounds a lot like socialism. World wide failure is the result of poor execution, not a bad idea. THE NEXT GROUP WILL GET IT RIGHT.

Jay Willis
Reply to  mikeyj
September 30, 2021 3:25 am

Sounds like the EU government, right there. Good idea, badly implemented, or bad idea well implemented? The former I think.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Jay Willis
September 30, 2021 4:55 am

The answer is not binery: A bad idea, impossible to implement….

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jay Willis
September 30, 2021 8:03 am

I’d have to say the EU government is a bad idea, badly implemented.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
September 30, 2021 10:23 am

That was my 1st thought. I could never work out why anyone (but bureaucrats) would believe what Europe needed was even more bureaucracy than they already had. Also, the notion that people are paying taxes to a group they have no control over electorally seems ridiculous.

AndyHce
Reply to  Jay Willis
September 30, 2021 10:10 am

By what standard is there actually a good idea?

Charles Fairbairn
September 30, 2021 4:03 am

All these types of articles start off with the basic and false assumption that CO2 somehow controls the climate and needs to be reduced. Where do they get this concept from?

There is NO factual evidence that this is so, and plenty of evidence that it is NOT so.

Why, therefore do we get so many of these articles relentlessly thrust upon us?
They all then seem to go off on a tangent into complex statistical and manipulated pontification upon their pet subjects; usually based on their guesswork relating to duff questionnaires.

What a waste of time.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
September 30, 2021 4:53 am

All these types of articles start off with the basic and false assumption that CO2 somehow controls the climate and needs to be reduced. Where do they get this concept from?

Where, indeed?

RickWill
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
September 30, 2021 4:59 am

To many here, it has been obvious for a long time that random energy was never going to be the saviour that the climate religion sought. A very deep hole has been dug and many reputations being buried in that hole.

The next big money spinner will be finding the reasons why random energy has failed. The woke climate worriers will dream up all these nuanced reasons rather than taking a quick scan of denier sites like WUWT where the obvious has been stated countless times – random energy is unsustainable. It can never reduce CO2 because it consumes more CO2 in its manufacture, transport, construction, transmission and storage than it can ever recover in its operating life – more energy in than out.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Charles Fairbairn
September 30, 2021 8:04 am

Yes, assert bullshit as if it were fact, then supply the “solutions.” SOP for the climate mafia.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
September 30, 2021 10:26 am

Wasn’t that the basis for witch-doctors to remain employed?

Michael in Dublin
September 30, 2021 4:23 am

George Orwell hated adjectives. Actually he hated the way they were misused and abused. His suggested avoiding them. One adjective I particularly hate is the word “holistic” as in “holistic solutions.” It makes the user sound intelligent and learned but for anyone who understands language and how it works, this word simply conceals a writer/speaker’s ignorance. Actually the way many climate alarmists use language, when carefully examined, reveals a lack of coherence and cohesion in their reasoning.

David Pentland
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 30, 2021 5:14 am

Like speaking of “Global Temperature” as if it could ever be stable or quantified.

fretslider
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 30, 2021 5:27 am

The left in general love word play

Tolerance and kindness now mean hatred and spite

bonbon
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 30, 2021 5:46 am

You might like this :
https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/18/the-great-reset-how-a-managerial-revolution-was-plotted-80-years-ago-by-a-trotskyist-turned-cia-neocon/
There it is shown why Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) wrote 1984.
Remember Orwell, as Captain Blair in Burma, knew what he was talking about – note the scene in 1984 with the rat and cage :
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/05/20/how-the-british-empire-created-and-killed-george-orwell/

beng135
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 30, 2021 8:02 am

Doublespeak.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
September 30, 2021 8:06 am

Climate alarmists have no ability to reason, which is how they got to be climate alarmists to begin with.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 1, 2021 12:00 am

See Griff for details.

Chakra
September 30, 2021 4:25 am

Or it is more likely that all these efforts like renewable energy & more efficient engines / machines do not have much effect on CO2 level. During Covid-19 restrictions / lockdowns, many industries did shut down. But the rate at which CO2 increases has not changed much.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Chakra
September 30, 2021 8:09 am

The supposed “case” for human CO2 emissions driving atmospheric CO2 levels is weak, as are all the component parts of the “climate crisis” nonsense. It begins with a scientifically incompetent comparison of questionable proxy data (from which all the “inconvenient” data points have been removed) with modern instrument measurements and goes downhill from there.

If today’s instrument data were part of the “proxy” record, it would be 1 or 2 data “points,” all of which would be discarded as “outliers.”

Zig Zag Wanderer
September 30, 2021 4:57 am

The findings revealed two surprises. First, state governments’ policies aimed at helping consumers improve energy efficiency had no effect on CO2 emission (sic).

So government policies don’t work.

Rather, states with economy-wide lower energy input per each unit of economic output (per capita gross domestic product, GDP) emitted lower levels of the greenhouse gas.

Word salad.

Second, investment in renewable energy sources led to increased levels of CO2 emissions in the residential sector.

So government policies don’t work.

These outcomes are evidence of a well-known phenomenon called the rebound effect that describes when people respond to saving energy by consuming more, negating the benefit of CO2 reduction.

No, the well-known phenomenon is that government policies don’t work.

The next steps for Adua and the authors is to go deeper into some of the findings, focusing on the residential sector. With more funding, he’d like to conduct survey-type studies with respondents who have renewable energy at home versus those without it, and gauge their attitudes towards general environmental protection.

Blatant cash grab.

Additionally, Adua is developing a book…

blatant advertising and cash grab.

It’s lucrative work, but it ain’t honest!

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
fretslider
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
September 30, 2021 5:17 am

To cut a long story short: “With more funding”

AndyHce
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
September 30, 2021 10:21 am

Government policies are often driven by, or at least full of, factors that have nothing to do with the desired outcome. Take the efforts to replace short lived dollar bills with more durable dollar coins, which could have reduced production cost considerably. A coin that was no larger or heavier that a dime, maybe lighter, — but was readily distinguishable both by sight and by feel — might have been accepted into general use. Instead, the new dollar coins had to fit all the PC biases and thus had no chance for acceptance.

Climate believer
September 30, 2021 5:27 am

warmed the planet at an alarming rate”

Oh, you’re an alarmist………(ignore) NEXT!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Climate believer
September 30, 2021 9:36 am

They should be a lot calmer today, now that it is 0.5C cooler than the hottest day they ever experienced.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Peter W
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 30, 2021 3:22 pm

And since Arctic sea ice has expanded over last year.

Jim Gorman
September 30, 2021 5:37 am

I think everyone of these studies should address how more CO2 could reduce or eliminate the next glaciation that is due to arrive. If we are doing the Precautionary Principle, we need to do it the whole way through.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 30, 2021 6:41 am

Interesting question. I am going out on a limb here, but my guess is that when the next glacial period takes hold, as it inevitably will, burning every last atom of carbon based combustible material on the planet will not delay it even one second. Any differing theories?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
September 30, 2021 8:47 am

Without a really good grasp of the exact mechanism for the initiation of glacial periods, it’s impossible to say for sure. On the other hand, on first principles, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase surface temperatures, all else being equal. But then, “all else” is never equal.

Steve
September 30, 2021 6:00 am

So massive lifestyle changes are required. In other words, more control of Elites over us peasants. We must do far less to save the mother earth.

bonbon
September 30, 2021 6:27 am

Good picture, yet I think Goya got it right :
Ridiculous Folly, from the ‘Disparates’ (Follies / Irrationalities)Note the orator, whose hands only are shown, and the vacant look of the family on the diseased tree. Curiously the orator’s garment matches the Author’s – coincidence?

francisco-de-goya-disparate-ridiculo-ridiculous-folly-in-or-after-1816.jpg
Scott snell
September 30, 2021 6:27 am

“We reviewed this article and found it to be spot-on.”

–Greenpeace

AGW is Not Science
September 30, 2021 6:29 am

For the past 150 years, humans have pumped extraordinary amounts of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, into the atmosphere and warmed the planet at an alarming rate.

Always nice to open with garden variety bullshit. And also conveniently spreads the “emissions,” as meaningless as they are in context of nature’s emissions, over a much longer time frame than is actually applicable, all so they can attempt to blame humanity for more of the entirely natural (and beneficial) warming since the end of the extraordinarily (and harmfully) cold climate during the “Little Ice Age.”

To slow down climate change, societies tend to focus on two solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

More “assumptions presented as facts.”

First, reducing “greenhouse gas emissions” will be meaningless, since atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically shown to “drive” the Earth’s climate.

Second, the warming of the climate has been virtually 100% beneficial. If the “Little Ice Age” climate was still with us, billions would be starving to death for lack of food.

two solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: improving energy efficiency and developing and using renewable energy sources

More utter bullshit – first of all, “improving energy efficiency” has always ultimately resulted in MORE, not less, energy use – the more “efficient” we are at using energy, the more uses we find for it; second, “renewable energy sources” are not “sources” of energy – they are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their existence, have to be backed up 100% by fossil fuels due to the intermittent and unpredictable and unreliable generation they are capable of, and do more environmental destruction than all the fossil fuel use to date has done or ever will.

These outcomes are evidence of a well-known phenomenon called the rebound effect that describes when people respond to saving energy by consuming more, negating the benefit of CO2 reduction.

First, since this “effect” is “well known,” (as I said above) it should never have been considered a “solution” to the non-problem of CO2 “emissions” to begin with – DUH! Second, there is no benefit of CO2 reduction, unless you’re anti-human, anti-life, and anti-environment. CO2 is the basis of all life on this planet.

states with economy-wide lower energy input per each unit of economic output (per capita gross domestic product, GDP) emitted lower levels of the greenhouse gas. Second, investment in renewable energy sources led to increased levels of CO2 emissions in the residential sector.

“Lower energy input per each unit of economic output (per capita GDP)” smells an awful lot like “pushing manufacturing and industry out of your state and changing your economy to more low emission business activity” by driving up energy costs. Which ultimately leads to exporting your “emissions” to other states – or to other countries (hello, China), thereby not having any impact on “emissions” other than to increase them (higher emissions in the states or especially countries you export your “industry” to, added transport “emissions” to get the “stuff” you need that is now made at a location further from where it is consumed, and more emission “intensive” energy being used (i.e., coal rather than gas for electricity, not that the “emissions” matter).

To assess renewable energy production, Adua and his team calculated the proportion of a state’s total energy consumption from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal or hydropower.

What a crock of shit. They can’t quantify the proportion of “consumption” from one energy “source” vs. another – once in the “gird,” electrons are electrons. Further, I’m sure their “quantification” as usual ignores the costs of the “renewable” scams.

Oh and of course, they conveniently sweep hydropower, the only actually useful electric generation, in with the worse-than-useless wind and solar to make the latter look better than they are. Geothermal is grossly expensive and extremely limited in usefulness, being confined to relatively mild climates (might be feasible in San Diego – don’t bother in Minnesota).

“It’s unexpected, but it’s not very surprising given what I know about human attitudes towards consumption and the use of resources. When people think they are already doing right for the environment, they begin to lose sight of other ways in which they harm the environment. They may also feel justified to consume a little bit more. And before you know it, the benefit of the solar panel is basically canceled out by increased consumption in other areas,” said Adua.

If it’s “not very surprising,” it shouldn’t be unexpected, dolt!

Oh, and this is probably the result of government forcing utilities to buy the lousy quality power from residential solar and subsidizing it, artificially decreasing the cost of electricity for those signing on to the boondoggle at taxpayer expense. You were expecting WHAT from this stupidity?!

“My goal is to provide policy makers with as much information as I can to make decisions about how to tackle the climate crisis.”

The only “crisis” will be if idiots like the author of this “study” get to implement their proposed “solutions,” which will be much more damaging than all the CO2 emissions we can muster, which don’t do anything but help plants grow better.

“But when you talk about structural change, people are just thinking, ‘that will destroy our way of life.’ But if we don’t solve that problem today, the environment will change our way of life for us. Maybe not our generation, but our descendants, the environment will change their way of life.”

If the climate keeps warming, it will improve the environment. There’s a reason every warmer-than-today warm period in human history was called a “climate OPTIMUM,” and I’ll just provide this little hint – it’s NOT because the “weather” was “bad.” Actual science, supported by historical observation, tells us the opposite is true – weather should improve, not get worse, as the climate warms.

AndyHce
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
September 30, 2021 10:27 am

“First, reducing “greenhouse gas emissions” will be meaningless, since atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically shown to “drive” the Earth’s climate.”

That is as meaningless as the article’s claims that CO2 is everything. Whether or not CO2 significantly effects climate, it does whatever it does totally independently of any empirical or other evidence.

Peter W
Reply to  AndyHce
September 30, 2021 3:29 pm

Further, during ice ages the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere eventually decreases because the resultingly colder oceans absorb more CO2, which decreases our ability to grow food and causes more starvation (see any handbook of Chemistry and Physics and check how the solubility of CO2 in water changes with temperature.)

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  AndyHce
October 1, 2021 8:01 am

No it isn’t meaningless. CO2 is not the “control knob” of climate, and there is no evidence that says it is – but plenty that says it isn’t.

Attempting to “manage” the Earth’s climate by reducing human CO2 emissions is like trying to steer a car by the throttle position.

sendergreen
September 30, 2021 7:01 am

Every time there is a Climate Conference airports within a hundred miles of the host city are clogged with private jets, … governmental, corporate, and personal. The inescapable sociological conclusion is that the outcomes the Professor in a now vacuous faculty is 2.3 inches away from voicing … is all the “little people’s” power, food, and water, consumption is to be throttled. Whilst the powerful proceed without limits.

September 30, 2021 7:19 am

“For the past 150 years, humans have pumped extraordinary amounts of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, into the atmosphere and warmed the planet at an alarming rate.”

Anything that starts with a bold faced lie like this deserves no consideration whatsoever. The two adjectives, extraordinary and alarming are clearly incorrectly applied and designed to trigger an emotional response.

Bill Everett
Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 30, 2021 8:17 am

Human CO2 contribution amounts to only two thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere. Efforts to reduce this microscopic contribution are a waste of time, effort and money.

September 30, 2021 7:52 am

 Karen Xuan Zhang and Brett Clark of the Department of Sociology at the U were co-authors.

Sociologists are a new elite of geniuses. They know everything better. Listen to them, or it may be too late!

Dave Fair
September 30, 2021 8:25 am

Just great; sociology professors designing energy policies. Their solution? Ration energy and force people to use less.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 30, 2021 9:40 am

They have it all figured out.

Pat from Kerbob
September 30, 2021 8:45 am

Except that addition of renewable energy to the grid drives up the cost of electricity ever higher, energy poverty so there is no leftover money to buy even more energy, the opposite is true.
What it shows is the inflexibility or inelasticity of electricity and energy demand, people have to use what they need to use

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
October 1, 2021 8:03 am

It also squanders resources that could be used to solve actual, as opposed to imaginary, problems.

Rory Forbes
September 30, 2021 10:40 am

This is the perfect example of an academic feeling the need to display his complete ignorance of a subject in which he has absolutely no practical knowledge.

4E Douglas
September 30, 2021 11:28 am

I can afford running my (rebuilt) Tahoe cheaper than buying a hybrid what ever, it’s entirely recyclable and no batteries to junk. Wait until winter I. Cedar City, see how those solar panels work..

Gerry
September 30, 2021 11:31 am

Not much mention anywhere of Chinas relinquished “one child policy” as a CO2 emission lowering policy. Since we all breath out CO2, population controls on the 7 billion people on the planet need to be taken seriously I think. What impact does humanity have on CO2 emission levels ? Surely there’s a case for only taking every second breath?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gerry
October 1, 2021 8:05 am

Since the Climate Mafia believes the CO2 induced catastrophe nonsense, let them take no breaths and show the courage of their convictions.

Clyde Spencer
September 30, 2021 11:38 am

When the idea of sealing homes to prevent air leaking out became popular, there was immediate concern about people getting sick from stale air. Little was said about radon accumulation. There are almost always tradeoffs in actions, usually referred to as unintended consequences. Moderation is probably a good path to follow.

Walter Sobchak
September 30, 2021 11:58 am

The rebound effect is also called Jevons Paradox, after the English economist William Stanley Jevons who observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He explained it in a book “The Coal Question” published 155 years ago.

It takes a long time for the warmunists to catch up to standard economics.

Andy Pattullo
September 30, 2021 12:20 pm

“For the past 150 years, humans have pumped extraordinary amounts of greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, into the atmosphere and warmed the planet at an alarming rate.”

Code words for “read no further if you value objective truth over religious zeal”.

Peter W
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
September 30, 2021 3:33 pm

And keep in mind that with all that increase in CO2, the earth is still not as warm as it was about 6,000 years ago.

Jeffery P
September 30, 2021 1:05 pm

File this under “Well, Duh.”

Mike Lowe
September 30, 2021 1:36 pm

So many of these academics presume that a reduction of CO2 is desirable, and start their deliberations from that point. Such a shame that not one of them has ever successfully questioned that starting position and proved what actually causes the minor heating and cooling which has been occurring for eons.

James H
September 30, 2021 7:47 pm

“ The findings revealed two surprises. First, state governments’ policies aimed at helping consumers improve energy efficiency had no effect on CO2 emission.”

The whole thing starts off with the faulty assumption that the government’s goal is to help consumers. It’s just another graft-filled boondoggle, funneling taxpayer money to special-interests that will return back as campaign donations.

gbaikie
October 1, 2021 5:55 pm

The reason human emit as much CO2 as do, to due to the stupid and evil politicians.
No politician has ever lowered CO2 emission.
No huge mass of Bureaucrats have likewise ever lower CO2 emission.
Politicians and bureaucrats have never done anything unless is helps them.
Their poetry and their pea brains are no better than the Vogons.
And the Vogons appear to be less willfully destructive and are better with their paper work
and their poetry more interesting.

%d bloggers like this: