Environmental conservatives pushed the “go green” movement to great success. This means trying to conserve and reduce the amount of energy we use every day. You can go green by engaging in simple tasks such as recycling, or ones that have a much more focused functions such as driving an alternative-fueled car. The article On the rebound demonstrates how there are rebounds effects that occur when we attempt to conserve energy. I disagree with the author because he does not adequately support his argument, he places too much emphasis on economics and not the environment, and it has been shown that it is best to try to conserve energy because it helps our environment and economy.
The author starts off the article by introducing the readers to the Jevons Paradox. This stems from the ideas beliefs of famous economist William Jevons and claims that “technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase, rather than decrease, the rate of consumption of that resource (On the rebound)." The author shares this belief and also believes increasing energy efficiency could backfire because it would allow and encourage further resource exploitation. This is the core of the author’s view on the subject. First the author supports his claim by stating that alternative fueled vehicles use more energy than they conserve. The author stated, “it takes energy to create and install energy-efficient equipment; and money saved on energy could be spent elsewhere, so ultimately contributing to economic activity, which drives up energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.” Though they may use energy, it is not more than the amount it takes in and alternative fueled-vehicles a better for the environment because they produce less pollution in the air than gasoline or petroleum ( Will Going Green ). There is no type of further evidence to strengthen this point thereby devaluing the author’s thesis. The author focuses too much on the economics of energy conservation and does not think about the bigger picture and how these type of vehicles help our environment. Alternative fueled vehicles do not release harmful emissions like carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides. They are cleaner burning and renewable so they do not strain our environment as much.
In the second body paragraph of the article, the authors tried to support his claim by briefly stating that there have been recent findings from studies done by the Breakthrough Institute, based in Oakland, California, that shows the rebound effects of energy conservation are very grand and could possibly be overwhelming for America in the future. Once again, the author does not go into depth about the study, but instead gives one sentence of summary and provides a link to information on the study for reader interested (On the rebound).
Even though the author believes that our economy will suffer from the rebound effect, I think otherwise. Though some people may agree with this because they believe that the United States is still in a recession, energy conservation can excel the United States if executed correctly. If you look at the world economy, it is challenging for the United States to compete in many common industries such manufacturing and service. We can project our power and establish ourselves in the technology industry by making energy efficient technology. Green technology may be the new big thing for America. Green technology would cause the need for “green jobs”, which would help the environment. President Obama even agrees that our economy could benefit from green jobs. His economic plan includes the creation of 5 million green collar jobs over the next ten years. The United States could also save money from energy conservation. In 2008, $45 billion of global government subsidies was spent for renewable energy compared to the $557 billion of subsidies for fossil fuels (Winston 2).
Another flaw with the author’s argument is that his claim is based of Jevons Paradox that was initially based on the resource coal (On the rebound). In today’s world, there are much more resources, and how has it been proven that this Paradox is true for resources that concern energy-related resources.
In conclusion, the author of On the rebound believes that energy conservation is producing a rebound effect that is harming our economy. I do not agree with the author’s claim because it has been shown that energy conservation helps our environment and our economy, and the author does not present evidence well.
Works Cited
Winston, Andrew. “Going Green for the Economy." Harvard Business Review. Web. Feb. 2012. <http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2010/08/going-green-for-the-economy.html>.
"On the Rebound." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group. Web. Feb. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7335/full/470435b.html>.
"Will Going Green Save The US Economy? | Greenopolis." Home. Web. Feb. 2012. <http://greenopolis.com/myopolis/blogs/david-d/will-going-green-save-us-economy>.
No comments:
Post a Comment