Energy Efficiency, or "EE", has become the catchphrase in climate mitigation discussions, as well it should be. Energy efficiency is the easiest and cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it's more than cheap - it's a money-maker. According to McKinsey's latest report, a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency in the U.S. save over $1.2 trillion, could eliminate almost a quarter of projected demand, and has the potential to abate 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions.
But let's not lose sight of what we want to accomplish with that efficiency - reducing emissions.
Efficiency is a ratio of input to output. When we talk about energy efficiency, we usually mean finding a way to do more with the same amount of energy, or doing the same thing with less energy.
Do more or do the same. What about doing less?
Obviously, it depends on doing more or less of what. If it's generating revenue, or feeding the hungry, or getting educated, more is clearly desirable. But we need to stop taking it for granted that more is always better, and remember that the objective here is to reduce our energy consumption, preferably without diminishing quality of life.
For example: I was in a (virtual) meeting the other day discussing residential building efficiency and the need for standards. One metric that was under discussion as an indicator of efficiency was "energy intensity", or the amount of energy used per square meter. Obviously, making any given home more efficient is better - assuming nothing else changes. But what if we were to reduce its size?
Think of it this way. Do you have any rooms in your house that are seldom or never used? What if you were to lop it off? Your energy consumption (and bill) would almost assuredly go down. Yet your energy per square meter would just as assuredly go up, since odds are that the space you got rid of didn't contain your fridge, washer/dryer, TV, home PC, etc. Ask yourself really - in your heart of hearts - would your quality of life suffer dramatically without that room?
Or think of it this way. Suppose you're building a new house. Is it better to build a really efficient 5,000 sq ft home, or a slightly less efficient 2000 sq ft home? Once again, the smaller is almost guaranteed to be less efficient since what you're going to give up is excess space that's unlikely to house most of your appliances. But it's also going to consume less, because all that space won't need to be heated or cooled.
"What about quality of life?" you say. "Won't I be happier in a big house?" I don't know - maybe not. My husband and I are big fans of Sarah Susanka's book "The Not So Big House." Ms. Susanka makes a very compelling - and beautifully illustrated - case for why a smaller home can often provide an even higher quality of life when it's been designed to truly live in. Check it out.
Full disclosure: we are having exactly this problem at EMC. Our Climate Leaders commitment is for an emissions reduction per square foot. But we have been taking actions in the company to reduce our physical footprint. The result should be reduced energy consumption, reduced cost, reduced greenhouse gas emissions - but a higher energy intensity. Meeting our goal is going to be a challenge. But eye on the ball - it should reduce our emissions and that, after all, is the point!
Recent Comments