The above graph is from the United Nations Development Programme – 2004 World Energy Assessment. The horizontal axis shows per capita energy consumption by country, while the vertical axis shows each country’s UN Human Development Index rating. To quote wikipedia:
The HDI combined three dimensions up until its 2009 report:
- Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity
- Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weighting) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio (with one-third weighting).
- Standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity.
The calculations changed in 2010, but the same factors are being measured.
This seems like a pretty good benchmark for measuring quality of life. The graph shows a clear correlation between energy consumption and quality of life. Clearly, the US could become more efficient in its energy use and still maintain a high standard of living for its citizens. France and Italy have comparable HDI scores, but use half as much energy per capita.
Right now, “negawatts”, or energy efficiency, are cheaper than expanding energy capacity. This is why we see so much investment in energy efficiency. It’s really a win-win situation: lower electric bills while reducing the need for expanding energy production and maintaining a high quality of life.
The US should continue to ramp up its energy efficiency measures and try to outpace the need for expanded capacity. However, one of the problem’s here is Jevon’s Paradox: the proposition 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.
In other words, if someone is used to having a $50/month electricity bill and improved efficiency brings that bill down to $30/month, there is a good chance that person will leave the lights on more often, or buy a second refrigerator, or another TV, thereby offsetting the efficiency gains. How do you get around this? One way would be a carbon tax that would increase the cost of energy. In this case, using less energy would not mean a reduced energy bill.
Do you think this is a good idea to help solve Jevon’s paradox?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
You know, I’ve never really bought into the Jevon’s paradox thing before (probably because I didn’t know the name if it even if I understood what it was) especially around electric bills. Especially because I don’t think people think in those terms yet. If I were to buy an energy efficient fridge, I’m not suddenly thinking that I can buy an energy hog TV to make up the difference. I think it’s more important to offer low-energy appliances as the norm over creating a carbon tax (for residential. I support carbon taxes for industries.)
I agree Alex. The more efficient the appliances, the better. For the most part, I think you’re right that a slight drop in energy bills will not make someone go splurge on a new TV or refrigerator. Especially in today’s economy. I could see this becoming more commonplace once people have more expendable cash and if technology gets to the point where the average energy bill is half of what it is today. But in both those cases, it’s going to be awhile before we see these conditions.