esr.org.nz

Notes (by John Peet) from an address by Jeanette Fitzsimons MP, to ESR Canterbury Branch and IPENZ Canterbury Branch, Monday 7th April 2008.

The title’s meaning was obvious, and her suggestion of it to ESR (several months earlier) reflected her casual conversation with a certain (unnamed) Government minister, who boasted of having installed a CFL lightbulb, and felt he had done his bit. She pointed out that cutting down on his motoring could achieve a lot more, which apparently elicited a degree of surprise!

She then commented to the meeting that her meaning was actually more metaphorical. While simple fixes such as cfls and switching off when we leave a room were important, there is the widespread idea that if we all do those things, the problem is solved. No change to lifestyle is needed, patterns of personal and resource consumption don’t need to change significantly, and we can also save money. Transport, of course, is a bigger problem – what do we put in the tank?

Her response was that while changing lightbulbs was important, the most important lightbulbs were those that were switched on in our heads. She then discussed several important points:

1. The impossibility of growing resource use in a finite planet. This was a familiar idea, and yet at the same time the hardest to convey to most people. For example, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) debate was being confused by those who failed to understand the difference between emissions intensity (tonnes/$ ) and absolute (tonnes) emissions. The nature of any future economy also needed to be thought about – what should grow and what not?
2. Peak oil. The really important issue was peak personal consumption of stuff! Richard Heinberg’s book (Peak Everything) pointed out that the world is approaching peak gas, food, fish, water, uranium etc. Peak oil may hit us first, but it’s not the only oncoming train. There will be widespread grief when generations reared on the idea that they could always expect “more” suddenly find that they can’t. An idea central to Economics, that resource scarcity will give rise to higher prices which will enable improved resource efficiency that will enable growth to continue is highly questionable. Her 1988 paper to the IPENZ Journal was an early contribution.
3. Every kWh, tonne of steel or of paper saved is equivalent to one produced. A better quality of life is entirely possible, without more resource use. Quality and quantity are key distinctions.
4. A light bulb-illuminating discourse between engineers and economists is badly needed. The economists’ idea of infinite substitutability violates laws of Physics, but is central to the idea that inflation can be controlled. Treasury has a fundamentalist faith in pricing, and believes that no other mechanisms are needed if this is done. Engineers use concepts such as Return on Investment too, but instead of looking at money, look at Energy Return on Investment (EROI) as a tool to help economists understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch in Physics either! That is a light bulb that desperately needs switching on!
5. WE are the problem, not China! The ETS is hugely complex and bureaucratic, but pricing could potentially achieve some significant improvement in our emissions. Questionable, however, whether the carbon savings will be large without parallel and substantial Government interventions in terms of, for example, an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that has real power. And the exceptions (e.g. agriculture exemptions for 5 years) and grandfathering of heavy fossil fuel using industries will actually stifle innovation and lock in old technologies. The ETS appears to be more about generating trading opportunities for financial markets than about actually capping tonnage emissions.