i just attended a conference recently where robert and brenda vale presented a very interesting idea.
the hypothesis was that our so called "technological improvements" didn't really lead to drastic improvements in performance and technology. they listed many examples - electric cars was one i could think off the cuff. in the early 20th century, electric cars already existed and already had a similar travel range and efficiency as the modern electric cars that we are banding around now as being green. and if we take into account the efficiency of supply of power today to run our electrical appliances or homes, the true efficiency of the appliance / house is far lower due to the limitations due to source supply.
another astounding thing was the comparision between the performance of BEZED, one of the low energy developments in the UK. they found that on average, although BEZED has reduced consumption of energy when compared to a similar scale and size of development, this reduction can be simply achieved by a change in user behavior in a normal house.
just two bites to think about.
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efficiency. Show all posts
efficiency vs effectiveness: an interesting sustainability concept
Saturday, November 7, 2009
we cannot continue as if it’s business as usual. already in academic circles, there have been talk that the damage that we’ve done has reached tipping point, the point where a negative feedback loop kicks in.
the major stress on sustainability efforts has been on efficiency, and rightly so. attaining efficiency is the low hanging fruit in the greening effort. so replacing outdated technology and processes to attain better returns, that’s relatively easy and we can do that immediately. but in my view, efficiency is a zero sum game. one can be very efficient at doing the WRONG thing. think of hyper efficient coal plants. super efficient cars. these would still create waste and pollution, regardless of how efficient they are, because they are producing the WRONG type of product in the first place.
thus i believe, before we talk about efficiency, we should talk about effectiveness. the question to be asked first must be “if this is good?” the concept of good is extremely problematic. good for whom? for which group of people, for people alone or all species?
very often, we are still caught in the human-centric vision where good means for the good of the human species. the opposite is the bio-centric view. this means for the good of all species. gradually, we are moving towards being more bio-centric, as we realize that we are part of the ecosystem and not outside of it. destroy the ecosystem, and we cannot survive. it’s as simple as that.
thus, i believe that a very important question that we are currently missing out on and that we should ask in any effort is this: “is this effective in conserving/restoring/protecting the health of the entire ecosystem?”
from that angle, there has to be a fundamental relook at our production methods and the way we make things. for a deeper discussion, refer to here.
the major stress on sustainability efforts has been on efficiency, and rightly so. attaining efficiency is the low hanging fruit in the greening effort. so replacing outdated technology and processes to attain better returns, that’s relatively easy and we can do that immediately. but in my view, efficiency is a zero sum game. one can be very efficient at doing the WRONG thing. think of hyper efficient coal plants. super efficient cars. these would still create waste and pollution, regardless of how efficient they are, because they are producing the WRONG type of product in the first place.
thus i believe, before we talk about efficiency, we should talk about effectiveness. the question to be asked first must be “if this is good?” the concept of good is extremely problematic. good for whom? for which group of people, for people alone or all species?
very often, we are still caught in the human-centric vision where good means for the good of the human species. the opposite is the bio-centric view. this means for the good of all species. gradually, we are moving towards being more bio-centric, as we realize that we are part of the ecosystem and not outside of it. destroy the ecosystem, and we cannot survive. it’s as simple as that.
thus, i believe that a very important question that we are currently missing out on and that we should ask in any effort is this: “is this effective in conserving/restoring/protecting the health of the entire ecosystem?”
from that angle, there has to be a fundamental relook at our production methods and the way we make things. for a deeper discussion, refer to here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts (Atom)
