A boondoggle to end all boondoggles?

[4dsc]

Al is careful to avoid proposing to slaughter any of the sacred cows of the "American way of life," such as private automobile ownership, or the right to squander as much energy as you can afford, be it by cranking up the air conditioning or cruising around in a motor yacht. In this, Al Gore and Dick Cheney seem to be soul-mates: to them the American way of life is non-negotiable.


What if Gore gave this speech instead...

Folks, oil is starting to run out, and we can't afford to keep on driving like we're used to. So, let's stop making and importing new cars, let's stop with the highway expansion, stop maintaining all those highway lanes at public expense, and move those resources to funding public transportation. Second, we've got to stop burning so much coal before the planet's climate blows up on us (of course, it may anyway, because of all the coal we've burned already) so let's build some wind mills, to provide, say, 75% of electricity within 10 years (100% won't work, because wind is intermittent, so you need some gas-fired power plants, for when it isn't blowing). But most importantly we must cut our energy use, before we're bankrupt as a nation (which we may be already) and we must do so very quickly. So let's regulate the use of air conditioning in businesses (ceiling fans, anyone?), stop illuminating roads and parking lots at night, and make a lot of other, sensible measures to cut energy use. And once we've done all these things, we will realize what sort of country we are now: not one that's driving off a cliff at breakneck speed with eyes shut tight, but an older, poorer, troubled country, not one likely to ever go to the moon again, but one that is perhaps capable of learning to live within its means without collapsing altogether. Thank you, and drive safely."

Al couldn't have given a speech like that for two reasons. For one, it wouldn't have gone over too well. For another, he is a product of a system - a national politician who is the son of a national politician. Politicians always try to perpetuate the system that got them into power.

http://energybulletin.net/node/45970

[crikkett]

1. what is the context of this article ?

I'm guessing you're quoting all or some of your post from the energybulletin link you provide but plz fill us in on when/where was his original speech that you're complaining about? I've been sick.

[robertpaulsen]

24. The context (Gore's speech) is linked within the OP's link.

http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/304

[Gman]

2. Gore is no longer a politician

in fact he describes himself as a "recovering politician". That is what gives him the added credibility he now has on the global warming issue.

[kristopher]

3. It looks to me like another Orlov is

It looks to me like another Orlov is another person so invested in his (lack of) "vision" for the future that he feels it appropriate to distort the position taken by Gore so that it will properly fit into Orlov's mental model of despair based on ignorance and (dare I say it?) self loathing.

One speech speech seldom defines the entirety of a person's view or goals, and this is no exception. Gore's stated purpose for making this appeal was to "create a political space for action". We will see if he his effort is successful in that regard; but I suspect this is just the opening salvo in Obama's campaign.

If Orlov actually knew anything about what he is attempting to critique, he'd know that conservation and energy efficiency are large components of the energy future Gore promotes. However, I suspect Gore is a little more clever than Orlov in that he is able to envision routes to conservation and efficiency that don't involve the criminalization of things like using air conditioning.

In fact, simplistic thinking bordering on outright stupidity is the hallmark of Orlov's little gem of an article since virtually every premise in it demonstrates abject ignorance and kindergarten logic. His snark on wind shows he has no idea of what a renewable infrastructure would look like; his attack on transportation likewise. He clearly doesn't even know Gore's positions nor any options regarding public policy that are more complex than simple dictatorship.

All in all, it is a wonderful example of what is wrong with the public discussion of energy issues. To be any better an example it would have to swing the pendulum of mental midgetry to the other extreme and claim that global warming is a scam to enrich the scientists.

[4dsc]

4. Sorry but energy efficiency and conservation isn't going to cut

The only simplistic thinking going on here looks is coming from those that believe all we have to do is "increase energy efficiency and conserve" and that will somehow allow our society to mitigate to an all electric society with no ramifications.. While energy efficiency and conservation may be good talking points, getting the job done would involve changing the American way of life and NO ONE, including MrGore, is going to talk about doing that!! That would include you too..

[GliderGuider]

5. The ghost of Jevons rides again

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

Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons Effect) is the proposition, first made by William Stanley Jevons, that technological improvements that increase the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to increase, rather than decrease, the rate of consumption of that resource. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox as it ran counter to popular intuition. However, the situation is well understood in modern economics. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given output, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource – which increases demand. Overall resource use increases or decreases depending on which effect predominates.

In a situation of constrained supply (given a freely functioning marketplace), increases in efficiency and conservation will provide a temporary, localized respite from rising energy prices. Eventually, however, market forces will win out, new demand will be created, consumption will again meet supply and the prices will rise to close the gap. If the market is not free, all bets are off -- the usual pressure is to artificially constrain prices, which makes the overall situation worse, not better.

The most likely global response is a reactive reduction in activity and economic output as we adjust to the supply constraints. This will have more impact in some regions than others, and will of course incorporate whatever new alternative energy supplies we manage to develop. The notion that we will (not can but will) produce enough wind/solar/efficiency to maintain our current BAU is probably a chimera.

[Indenturedebtor]

6. Or we could just lay down and die. No one is going to dramatically change their way of life without

being forced to. It's not even something worth talking about on the national stage. In an ideal world everyone would make rational informed decisions based on evidence and forward thinking.

Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

Gore set his sights on the stars, and hopefully if we get behind him we will all hit the moon and survive the changeover.

People will change when they're forced to... at least by trying to get to 100% we will have a softer landing for the coming fall.

[GliderGuider]

7. Oh, I agree

Part of the human race sees problems coming and looks relentlessly for solutions. Another part resolutely refuses to see problems until they get smacked by them. It will be interesting to see how much the energy of the first group can overcome the inertia of the second in the time we have left before the problems become really severe.

No matter what the outcome, change is the the only constant in the human condition. We've adapted to major change before and we'll adapt again. Not all of us will adapt, of course, but then we don't need everybody. All we need (at least from the POV of our DNA) is enough people to continue the species.

Another way to look at it is that since humanity is a part of nature, human activity is just another force of nature -- like glaciation or the Deccan Traps. The only difference between us and a shark or a volcano is our ability for conscious self-reflection. That ability has caused us to assume responsibility for the consequences of our actions in a way that pure forces of nature don't. Is this an important consideration? Your answer will depend largely on the time scale you're considering and your philosophical perspective on the planet, its inhabitants and perhaps even the nature of reality.

[Indenturedebtor]

9. Hah well I don't want to go in too many directions with my reply

I do believe that our ability to know that we are doing harm, our ability to see the value in the creatures of the planet, and even our natural imperative to survive and continue the species means that only a diseased mind could possibly view conservation as anything but a moral and practical imperative.

Whether or not we can heal enough diseased minds in time is the real question in my opinion. Even though we are a part of nature, our consciousness changes the rules a bit.

[kristopher]

10. That's a bunch of hogwash.

And if you've ever washed a hog that just got out of it's wallow, you'll have a better appreciation of my feelings regarding the use of this supposed "paradox".

Yes, modern economics shows that when there is a decrease in price of a given commodity, all other things being equal, there is more of that commodity consumed.

Does that "prove" this purported "paradox"? No it doesn't.

Let's take oven ranges, refrigerators and air conditioners for example. These are three classes of products that have seen good results from efforts aimed at improving energy efficiency. Can you can show me any increase in use that is a direct result of such gains in efficiency?
The first trouble you'll have is isolating the effect of efficiency on consumption. We have a growing population so be sure and account for that first and foremost.

The second problem is that there is no universal 'paradox' as claimed by Jevons. The fact is that the confounds noted above mean that there are nearly ALWAYS other motivating factors that are as, or more, important to consumer choice than greater efficiency. Take for example, water. If somehow well water were to be more efficiently delivered to your home by the instalation of a more energy efficient water pump, would that increase your water use? No, it probably wouldn't as there are other constraints on water use that are more relevant to your immediate choice about use.

Driving is similar to water. We're emerging from an era of cheap energy where the major constraint of automobile use was not the cost of the energy used to move the vehicle. Available time, highway congestion, and lack of alternatives are all just as or more important to finding the upper limit of use as is the price of energy.

I've also noted before that the consciousness of energy production is a known factor. People who are more aware of where their energy comes from and what is involved *tend* to be more conscious of their use of energy. In a distributed grid where windfarms (sometimes not spinning) and solar panels (night time) are a daily part of everyone's lives, it is very probable that an increased awareness of use will track the increased awareness of the limits of production.

The use of this "paradox" is a lazy and fallacious argument that terrifically oversimplifies the issue.

[GliderGuider]

14. What a relief!

Now I can save myself $100 and not bother with that piece of trash Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements that depakid linked below. It's nice to know that I can rely on blogposts like yours for the truth, and avoid deluding myself with books authored by people like:

Mario Giampietro: Ph.D. from Wageningen University; ICREA Research Professor at the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA)
Universitat Autonoma Barcelona, Bellaterra SPAIN; Author of "Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agro-ecosystems"; CV http://www.liphe4.org/mario_cv.pdf">here (warning -- it's a 27-page PDF and it contains a list of the 86 papers he's published).

Kozo Mayumi: PhD from University of Kyoto; Full professor at University of Tokushima; Author of "The Origins of Ecological Economics: The Bioeconomics of Georgescu-Roegen", list of works here.

Blake Alcott: a self-educated ecological economist with a Masters from Cambridge; author of a variety of papers such as "The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact?" (published in Ecological Economics in 2007, and "Energy rebound and economic growth", published in the Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Workshop in Advances in Energy Studies, Porto Venere, Italy, 2006. His web site is at http://blakealcott.org

John M. Polimeni: Ph.D. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Assistant Professor, Albany College of Pharmacy, member of Romanian National Institute of Economic Research; list of works here.

Now, these backwater nobodies seem to think that the Jevons Paradox is real and measurable (or at least empirically demonstrable). I wonder what you know that they don't?

On edit: What the hell, I swallowed hard and ordered the book after all. It will be very interesting to see what peer-reviewed authors think of this theory.

[kristopher]

17. Citing the credentials of the authors without knowing their arguments is...

Citing the credentials of the authors without knowing their arguments is rather premature on your part, don't you think?
In the meantime, why not use some normal cognition (as opposed to precognition) to deal with the examples offered (again) below?

...
Yes, modern economics shows that when there is a decrease in price of a given commodity, all other things being equal, there is more of that commodity consumed.

Does that "prove" this purported "paradox"? No it doesn't.

Let's take oven ranges, refrigerators and air conditioners for example. These are three classes of products that have seen good results from efforts aimed at improving energy efficiency. Can you can show me any increase in use that is a direct result of such gains in efficiency?
The first trouble you'll have is isolating the effect of efficiency on consumption. We have a growing population so be sure and account for that first and foremost.

The second problem is that there is no universal 'paradox' as claimed by Jevons. The fact is that the confounds noted above mean that there are nearly ALWAYS other motivating factors that are as, or more, important to consumer choice than greater efficiency. Take for example, water. If somehow well water were to be more efficiently delivered to your home by the instalation of a more energy efficient water pump, would that increase your water use? No, it probably wouldn't as there are other constraints on water use that are more relevant to your immediate choice about use.

Driving is similar to water. We're emerging from an era of cheap energy where the major constraint of automobile use was not the cost of the energy used to move the vehicle. Available time, highway congestion, and lack of alternatives are all just as or more important to finding the upper limit of use as is the price of energy.

I've also noted before that the consciousness of energy production is a known factor. People who are more aware of where their energy comes from and what is involved *tend* to be more conscious of their use of energy. In a distributed grid where windfarms (sometimes not spinning) and solar panels (night time) are a daily part of everyone's lives, it is very probable that an increased awareness of use will track the increased awareness of the limits of production.

The use of this "paradox" is a lazy and fallacious argument that terrifically oversimplifies the issue.

[GliderGuider]

18. Following up on some of the links from those authors last night led me to this

The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency (5 Mb PDF warning)

It's a paper published in October last year by the UK Energy Research Center. It's a thorough review and meta-analysis of the research on what is now called the "rebound effect" in energy efficiency, which is the modern restatement of Jevons' original idea. I guess it had to be renamed in order to rehabilitate it out from under the shadow of the word "paradox" which of course, it's not. It turns out that researchers have been looking at this effect quite a bit in recent years. As you point out, there are significant complexities involved, and the effect is sometimes obscured by other factors.

The paper defines the effect this way:

Many energy efficiency improvements do not reduce energy consumption by the amount predicted by simple engineering models. Such improvements make energy services cheaper, so consumption of those services increases. For example, since fuel efficient vehicles make travel cheaper, consumers may choose to drive further and/or more often, thereby offsetting some of the energy savings achieved. Similarly, if a factory uses energy more efficiently it becomes more profitable encouraging further investment and greater levels of output. This is termed the direct rebound effect.

Even if consumption of energy services remains unchanged, there are reasons why energy savings across the economy may be less than simple calculations suggest. For example, drivers of fuel-efficient cars may spend the money saved buying petrol on other energy-intensive goods and services, such as an overseas flight. Similarly, any reductions in energy demand will translate into lower energy prices which encourage increased energy consumption. These mechanisms are collectively known as indirect rebound effects. The sum of direct and indirect rebound effects represents the
economy-wide rebound effect. Rebound effects are normally expressed as a percentage of the expected energy savings from an energy efficiency improvement, so a rebound effect of 20% means that only 80% of the expected energy savings are achieved.

The paper examines a broad range of research, and includes the following statements in the conclusions:

It would be wrong to assume that, in the absence of evidence, rebound effects are so small that they can be disregarded. Under some circumstances (e.g. energy efficient technologies that significantly improve the productivity of energy intensive industries) economy-wide rebound effects may exceed 50% and could potentially increase energy consumption in the long-term. In other circumstances (e.g. energy efficiency improvements in consumer electronic goods) economy-wide rebound effects are likely to be smaller. But in no circumstances are they likely to be zero.

and

Rebound effects vary widely between different technologies, sectors and income groups. While these differences cannot be quantified with much confidence, there should be scope for including estimated effects within policy appraisals and using these estimates to target policies more effectively. Where rebound effects are expected to be large, there may be a greater need for policies that increase energy prices.

Obviously, the examples you give of kitchen appliances and water pumps above don't demonstrate the effect easily. However, the fact that you were able to choose examples that present quantification difficulties or have other constraints does not invalidate the theory itself.

In the paper linked above, I especially commend to your attention section 3.4. In it the authors assess 17 research studies on rebound in private automobile transportation, which find long-run rebound effects converging around 20% or so. In section 3.5 they look at the rebound effects in home heating. Again, their meta-analysis shows rebound effects in the range of 10% to 58%. They also note that for time-intensive energy uses like washing clothes or watching television the rebound effects from improving appliance efficiency will be very small.

There is also a large section devoted to the analysis of economy-wide rebound effects, with the following statement as one of the conclusions:

The main insight from this evidence base is the dependence of the economy-wide rebound effects on the nature and location of the energy efficiency improvement, which makes any general statements regarding the magnitude of such effects questionable. However, while little confidence can be placed in the quantitative estimates, the frequent finding that economy-wide rebound effects exceed 50% should give cause for concern. Extending and improving this evidence base should therefore be a priority for future research.

This paper clearly shows that the ghost of Jevons is still stalking the research landscape, and significant supporting evidence has been accumulated.

As to your comment that authors' credentials are less important than their arguments or conclusions, I will say this. Their basic conclusion appears to be given in the title of the book, as well as the Amazon excerpt. The credentials of the authors serve to set our expectations about the rigour of their analysis and the resulting reliability of that conclusion (after all, given their reputations they have significant skin in the game). I would take the conclusions of a Giampetro that Jevons' theory is supportable well before the conclusions of a kristopher that it's hogwash.

[kristopher]

19. Well, if you throw out the word "paradox"

Jevons really didn't say anything, did he? Or are you of the mind that he is the first to note that, all things being equal, decreased price leads to increased consumption? Since the characteristic of increased efficiency that prompts greater consumption is actually decreased relative price, there is nothing really new there and as I've repeatedly pointed out, it certainly isn't a "paradox" to anyone that has the proper background and a little clarity of vision.

You have done an excellent job of supporting my statements and I thank you for taking the time to do the research (not snark). The fact that this is part of basic economics also means it is usually part of good policy analysis.

The most important finding you've presented is that your earlier application of "Jevon's Pradox" as some sort of primary "law" that would dictate an inevitable outcome to energy efficiency eforts (to be said only in a sonorous rolling voice) is an inappropriate usage based on lack of understanding of the dynamics at work. That was my biggest complaint with this concept every time I've seen it used.


In the case of switching from petroleum to EVs for transport, there are time and space constraints acting to mitigate the use of the highways. As I said, fuel costs are only one consideration. The fact that fuel costs have been extremely low for 20+ years tells us, I think, that the US lifestyle probably already approaches a maximum use beyond which people simply don't want to drive.

I want to sincerely thank you for taking the time to look this up and having the integrity to share what you found even though it wasn't as supportive of your original position as you might have wished. The ability to engage in exchanges that actually improve our understanding depends totally on that type of honesty in character. Thank you again for demonstrating it isn't lost.

[GliderGuider]

20. As far as I know, Jevons was the first to notice

or at least to spell out in a publication, that increased efficiency in resource use was identical to lowering the price of the resource. Before that link was made, the effect seemed paradoxical. After the link was recognized the effect was intuitively obvious to those who understood supply and demand. It seems, however, that there are still many who don't realize that efficiency and price are identical. Jevons himself described it as paradoxical, and it's too bad the label stuck -- it has reinforced the idea that efficiency and price are different economic beasts.

[depakid]

21. Love in the time of paradox...

It's also interesting to note that the marginalist revolution- from which all neoclassical economic sprang was based on reconciling the Diamond/Water paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value

Once the nature of marginal utility was understood (proponents of flat taxation still don't get it) it wasn't a paradox at all!

A couple of other notions might be woven well into Jevon's paradox (or the rebound effect, if we prefer).

One of course is that Malthus, odious as his political theories were, had certain propositions right. Namely that as "the working masses" gained affluence through better productivity and higher wages, populations would increase to the point it would drive workers' driving wages right back down (kind of a corollary to his all too familiar concept re: exponential growth of population vs. linear growth of food resources).

Another connection that's interesting is between efficiency of exploiting a potentially renewable resource flow and the Hardin's tragedy of the commons. We see that clearly with respect to modern technologies' affects on fisheries, but one can see it in a range of other resources, ecological services and in agriculture as well.

Efficiency does not always equal better- or sustainable.

[GliderGuider]

22. Nice observations.

My mother (an 84 year old socialist, active in left-wing politics and social justice causes her entire life) has repeatedly said that she worships inefficiency. For her, it's because an inefficient world provides more work for more people, and thus provides a more equitable distribution of money, goods and services. The more I understand about the world, the more I agree with her.

Also, I wonder if perhaps even St. Malthus had the food/population dynamic backwards. Population is the dependent variable, and simply can't outgrow its food supply. As the food supply hits its limit population growth will naturally decline, until finally, as with all species, an oscillating equilibrium is reached. The concern for homo ecologicus is how much damage may have been done to the rest of the biosphere by the time that equilibrium is achieved, due to humanity's ability to usurp other species' habitats for our own purposes.

[JFreitas]

25. This may sound reasonable and applicable

This may sound reasonable and applicable:

"WPopulation is the dependent variable, and simply can't outgrow its food supply. As the food supply hits its limit population growth will naturally decline, until finally, as with all species, an oscillating equilibrium is reached."

But it isn't.

You should google "overshoot" which is a an ecological expression which describes just what is happening today. Population can outgrow the food supply, if the food supply has expanded beyond what it's natural limits would be, due to the sudden appearance of a new "resource" which inflates it. When the resource is exhausted, food supply comes down, and population levels crash to (generally) levels that are catastrophically lower than before. This has been witnessed in nature with certain species in closed systems a number of times.

It is also a good description of what the age of oil did to our supply of food, vastly increasing it in an artifical way. Ehen oil goes away, so goes the food.

[bananas]

26. That's why it oscillates. nt

[GliderGuider]

27. We haven't outgrown our current food supply, but we are in overshoot

The two situations are not incompatible. We've drawn down natural capital to artificially and temporarily increase the carrying capacity of the planet, primarily by boosting the human food supply. As a result we are well into overshoot if you take fossil fuels out of the equation. When the oil begins to run down or other factors intervene, and the food supply drops, so will population.

For grins, you can read my essay on the topic: Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room. I hadn't quite grokked the food/population relationship yet when I wrote it (I got that from reading "Ishmael" and "The Story of B" a lot later) but the message is the same.

[kristopher]

23. It's important to retain the distinction as well as to recognize the similarity. nt

[depakid]

12. "the situation is well understood in modern economics"

Apparently, not by everyone... or even most.

Cool new book on point btw:

Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements

Jevons' Paradox, which was first expressed in 1865 by William Stanley Jevons' in relation to use of coal, states that an increase in efficiency in using a resource leads to increased use of that resource rather than to a reduction. This has subsequently been proved to apply not just to fossil fuels, but other resource use scenarios. For example, doubling the efficiency of food production per hectare over the last 50 years (due to the Green Revolution) did not solve the problem of hunger.

The increase in efficiency increased production and worsened hunger because of the resulting increase in population. The implications of this in today's world are substantial. Many scientists and policy makers argue that future technological innovations will reduce consumption of resources; Jevons' Paradox explains why this may be a false hope.

This is the first book to provide a historical overview of Jevons' Paradox, provide evidence for its existence and apply it to complex systems.

Written and edited by world experts in the fields of economics, technology and the environment, it explains the myth of efficiency and explores its implications for resource usage (particularly oil). It is a must read for policy makers, natural resource managers, academics and students concerned with the effects of efficiency on resource use.

http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Efficiency-Improvements-Earthscan-Research/dp/1844074625

(a bit spendy, but on my wish list).

[GliderGuider]

15. The comment about food production is very insightful

These authors evidently understand how food and population are related (i.e. that food is the independent variable).

I'd never thought of the Jevons Paradox in relation to food production efficiency, with demand provided by population growth. It seems this may be one of the more readily visible bits of evidence for the theory.

[kristopher]

8. So you have no idea of Gore's (or my) approach either, eh?

"The only simplistic thinking going on here looks is coming from those that believe all we have to do is "increase energy efficiency and conserve..."

If ignorance is bliss, you are surely one pup in paradise.

Who said "all we have to do" other than you? As noted any number of times the answer to our energy problems requires us to proceed on many fronts, including efficiency and conservation (which includes understanding and changing the way Americans view energy).

Did you ever bother to read anything other than a right wing website for your information?

[Finishline42]

11. Do you think they get paid to propagate that stuff...

RFK Jr spoke in Louisville yesterday and talked about 200 years ago England struggled with just such a choice - making slavery illegal when it comprised 25% of the GNP. Certain doom was predicted by those invested in slavery - free labor and the trade of men. England did the right thing and abolished slavery. Funny thing happened on the way to 'certain doom' - the Industrial Age. Necessity gave way to innovation and it opened the market to thousands of new businesses and an economy that expanded many times over.

Replacing an oil dominated economy will unleash dynamics in our economy that are sorely needed. Too many old style companies thinking about keeping the status quo.

[kristopher]

13. There is no doubt that the existing power infrastructure fund FUD

Creation of information to support the spread of, and hiring of public relations firms to accomplish the spread of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is funded by both the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industries.

It is beyond being a question; it is a well established fact.

[happyslug]

28. Slavery was had ceased to be economical in England during the Dark Ages.

And except for personal slaves brought in from elsewhere, slavery has NEVER been permitted in England since the Dark Ages (and the records being unclear for the period AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire, that may be true from the time of the Roman Empire). Please note Serfdom is NOT slavery. Serfdom was abolished in the 1300s in England, but a Serf was viewed as a Freeman except to his "Lord" and could NOT be sold (Through the land he was on could be, but the buyer bought the land subject to the rights of the Serf, and was for this reason more than any other that serfdom was abolished in the 1300s).

As to Slavery in the British Empire, most was in the Caribbean, but the abolishment was only in 1835. People forget the main purpose of Slavery before the US Revolution in the Caribbean, was the production of Sugar via Sugar Cane. Just before the Napoleonic War started, the Sugar Beet was first planted in Europe. Do to the Subsequent boycott of the importation of sugar implanted by Napoleon, the price of Cane Sugar fell in the Caribbean. This continued AFTER the Napoleonic wars, dropping the price even more. With this drop in price, so did the price of slaves in the Caribbean (Through the rise of Cotton crops in the US increased the price of Slaves in the US). Britain had continued its domination of the Caribbean Sugar crop, even from islands controlled by Spain and France (Through the main French Sugar colony declared itself independent in 1804, that was Haiti and came under British control as to its exports).

Thus by the time Britain decided to abolish Slavery, the market had collapsed, the price of Sugar was NOT what it had been in the 1600s and 1700s. Slavery still big in Cuba and the US, do more in the US do to the Cotton production. Note: the US had made it illegal to import slaves in 1808, but such importation continued till 1865, yes as the South Collapsed during the US Civil War, some Plantation owners imported in Slaves.

Thus by 1835, the areas controlled by Britain (i.e. the Caribbean) had long since ceased to be the only source of Sugar. Those areas that still did sugar plantation with slaves, Cuba, the US Deep South (Louisiana etc) Brazil still had slaves. Those ares where slavery was growing in the early 1800, Brazil and the US South was OUTSIDE the Control of Britain (And some people questioned the control over India, for technically India was still Independent at that time, but under the full control of the East India Company till after the Great Mutiny of 1858).

As to the 25% of England's GNP 200 years ago (In 1806) I have no Knowledge, but that is during the Napoleonic war so is unlikely, I therefore assuming it is the 1835 abolishment. As you see from above, the main source of slave made products in 1835 was NOT subject to the abolishment (in fact England's mill owners wanted England to go to war in 1862 in support of the US South, so they could still get the Cotton they needed, and England barely did NOT go to war to support the South, part of the reason was Lincoln's decision to make the Civil war a War to end US Slavery).

For the Sugar Beet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet

My point is England did NOT give up 25% of its GNP to abolish Slavery, most of the slave products continued to be imported till after slavery was abolished and thus England was NOT giving up much when it abolished slavery in its colonies, if 25% of England's GNP was dependent on Slavery before 1835, it remained that high after 1835 (This is when Cotton became more and more important for England's industrial growth at that time).

[Fledermaus]

16. Lets take a good look at conservation & efficiency.

Germany’s electricity use is 48820.41 kWh/capita

Ours is 92372.90 kWh/capita

http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DE-encc.html

Germans use 47% less electricity.

We are 5% of the worlds population and we consume over 25% of the worlds recourses.

Its that simple. We are pigs.

I, for one, have made the decision to replace all of my major appliances with the Energy Star products over the next twelve months.