The Value of Energy Efficiency
I wrote yesterday about how Denmark has achieved a high level of economic prosperity and human development while also consuming drastically less energy than the United States does on a per capita basis. Conn Carroll at the Heritage blog counters that Denmark does offshore drilling (”Denmark now produces more 344,000 barrels of oil per day and 369 billion cubic feet of natural gas every year”) and also this:
For as green as Denmark is, however, it still is not energy independent. All the money they take on from oil and gas exports helps pay for the 145 million tons of coal Denmark has to import every year just to keep the lights on (neither Friedman nor Yglesias bother to mention this inconvenient truth).
I’m not sure what’s so inconvenient about this truth. Denmark is a tiny country surrounded by friendly neighbors, it would be absurd and probably impossible for Denmark to be trying to achieve autarky in any domain:
Nor in the case of the United States is it either realistic or desirable for us to seek an environment of zero energy imports. There’s nothing with importing hydroelectricity from Canada. What would be desirable would be to (a) reduce the negative environmental externalities associated with the burning of fossil fuels, and (b) reduce America’s economic vulnerability to supply shocks associated with political instability in the world’s major oil- and gas-exporting regions. One good way to do this would be to take measures to reduce the energy intensity of America’s society and economy. When such measures are proposed, the right typically responds that any such measures would be hugely detrimental to American quality of life. The example of Denmark, however, suggests that this is dead wrong — Denmark is far more energy efficient than the United States and its citizens enjoy a comparable high standard of living.
It’s true that Denmark produces some oil domestically (as does the United States, even with the offshore drilling moratorium in place) but I don’t really see what this has to do with the merits of adopting Denmark-style conservation measures. Clearly, somewhat increased levels of domestic oil production combined with dramatic reductions in domestic oil consumption would be a net environmental benefit so if that’s something Heritage wants to start proposing I think progressives would be excited.
67 Responses to “The Value of Energy Efficiency”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
OT: FYI,
i’ve written a new Pie Filter for MattY’s new site.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
August 11th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
For as green as Denmark is, however, it still is not energy independent.
Remember kids, if you can’t be perfect, don’t even try.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
What Denmark did during the last energy crisis was realize that, even after that crisis passed, there would be another energy crisis that was going to come again, sooner or later, and planned accordingly.
Gas is coming down to less than $4/gallon and the age of the SUV is pretty much over at this point. The question is, after the current crisis recedes, what are we going to do in preparation for the next one? Are we going to place ourselves in a position where we’re vulnerable to shocks in the oil market, or are we going to be able to regard them as just bumps in the road?
From the noise being made from the right-wing, they believe that the solution is just to “wait it out” until the crisis passes and then go back to doing exactly what we’ve been doing voer the past 30 years.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Given that the U.S. has large amounts of domestic coal, doesn’t that suggest we should be able to go even farther than the Danes toward an energy supply that is resistant to global shocks?
August 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
You tell us that Denmark has taken a variety of energy conservation measures and now uses “drastically” less energy per capita than the U.S. In your columns, these statements are supported by exactly zero data.
Denmark is scarcely more than a city-state. If Danes were as wealthy as Americans, I suspect that they’d use lots of energy too. I’m sorry, but the idea that Americans want to emulate a Scandanavian life-style is a political loser. I know it’s tough on Harvard-educated Manhattanites to learn that they won’t be able to do urban planning for 300 million people, but we all face disappointments in life.
Gasoline prices in the U.S. are falling already. The majority of Americans can solve their energy “crisis” by buying a more fuel efficient car and driving less. People egoistic enough to own huge houses can save cash by not heating/cooling the top floor. The prices of “far out” properties will fall until they become affordable.
Low-income rural areas in the north and the south will probably contract. It doesn’t really make sense to live there anyway. Inertia has kept people there and now it’s time to go.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
If Danes were as wealthy as Americans, I suspect that they’d use lots of energy too.
Danish per capita GDP: $57,040 ($37,400 with PPP adjustment)
US per capita GDP: $45,959
August 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Denmark GDP/capita: $57,000
US GDP/Capita $46,000
Danes are significantly wealthier than Americans. But hey Alan you go on pretending you know how the world works.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Energy usage.
Denmark’s per-capita GDP is 38k, ours is 45k. Given the difference between median and mean though, I suspect that they’re not doing that badly cashwise when compared with our middle class.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
You can’t compare US energy policy with Denmark because of the difference not only in populations and size, but also of mix. The US exports more manufactured goods than any other country in the world. We have more heavy industry, which uses up a lot of energy. Not to mention our goods have to be transported from far away coasts to the interior. I would guess that 90% of the Danish population is within 30 miles of a port of some sort. That significantly reduces the energy cost of various goods.
You only weaken your arguments by using such different countries like Denmark and Iceland to make your points. If this is the best you can do, than what hope is there overall. You’d be better off looking at energy use and conservation for comparably large areas, like the EU.
* This isn’t as bad as when you used Iceland as your point of comparison, but it’s pretty bad.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Oh and FYI, per capita energy use is a terrible measure to use. Energy use per $ of GDP is a much better measurement because it measures how much energy your economy uses to make its economy run. I bet N Korea has low per capita energy usage, but it’s not because they’re efficient, it’s because they don’t have an economy.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Yeah, guys, snark with your “data” all you want, but the fact is, none of you have managed to poke holes in Alan’s central claim: the U.S. doesn’t have to take the Danish way out and become more energy-efficient; rather, we can conserve energy simply by reducing the amount of fuel we spend on transportation, heating, and cooling, and by increasing density.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Denmark is not a city state, but is very much a part of Europe’s inner market, which is very comparable to the US.
The notion that you cannot compare large and small countries is laughable. We get much vegetable produce from Holland for instance. Then again, we export bacon to the UK. With no domestic industrial production to speak of, Denmark has to import a wealth of industrial goods from China, Japan and the US. No European country is self sufficient, just as no US state is self sufficient.
The individual US states could easily implement regulations, that would boost energy effeciency immediately and over time. You Americans could start by insulating your houses properly! Yes, that works against the heat as well. You could also build houses that employed natural ventilation. But why should you with such cheap energy? Solution: tax energy (and resources more generally) and create high minimum energy efficiency standards, then the rest will follow.
Such regulation is independent of the size of the country and could be done tomorrow anywhere in the US.
/Limagolf
August 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Rob,
Danes are significantly wealthier than Americans.
I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers from (your ass?), but according to the OECD, per capita GDP for Denmark and the U.S. in 2006 (the most recent year for which it reports figures) using PPP values are as follows:
Denmark: $35,217
United States: $43,801
The table is here: http://ocde.p4.siteinternet.com/publications/doifiles/02-01-01-t2.xls
In other words, Americans are almost 25% wealthier than Danes.
But of course all such dollar-based comparisons are very imperfect measures of “standard of living.” I think if you compared consumption, if you looked at the ways people actually live, most Americans would consider Danes even worse off than the OECD numbers suggest. By American standards, Danish housing is small and primitive. Cars and driving are almost a luxury. By virtue of its sheer size and the diversity of its geography and culture, America just offers a much richer environment for people to live in than a small, homogeneous European nation like Denmark.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
WHile not completely worthless, the focus on domestic oil production is largely a red herring. If the US allows drilling in the gulf, the US doesn’t own the oil that comes out. ANd Exxon isn’t going to cut us all a deal on the gas they produce because, hey, we’re all Americans.
Oil production is a global market. You pay almost exactly the same price at the pump for gas that is made from oil pumped in the Gulf of Mexico as you do for oil pumped in the Persian Gulf. If there was enough oil pumped in the US to provide 1005 of the oil used by the US, it would still do absolutely nothing to protect US consumers from oil price shocks.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
With no domestic industrial production to speak of, Denmark has to import a wealth of industrial goods from China, Japan and the US. (emphasis mine)
Don’t you think that not having industrial production (they do actually, just not enough of it) makes the Danes look more energy efficient than it actually is? It takes a lot of energy to make a car. The Danes get credit for the energy their cars use after they buy it, but not for the energy it takes to make the cars, which is likely allocated to Germany or an Eastern European country.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
If Danes aren’t wealthier than Americans, they are happier than Americans by a long shot: http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN0145488820080701“>
August 11th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
14: That’s really smooth Mixner. Take the GDP/capita numbers (in which Danes fare better), then switch to the PPP numbers and then claim that these still magically fail to capture such factors as the cost of driving a car in Denmark. Actually, since I’m pretty sure that since Denmark provides a much more robust social safety net and has a lower gini index then the US, the median citizen in Denmark is actually doing better than the PPP numbers suggest.
Also, it’s patently ridiculous to give America credit for ‘geographic diversity’ in comparison to Denmark. Citizens of Denmark can travel all over Europe with hardly any difference in convenience compared to inter state domestic travel by Americans. Just because you embrace being a troll doesn’t mean it doesn’t detract from your credibility.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Sorry, but….Denmark is a city state?
That has to be news to them.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I was curious and looked it up. According to the U.S. DOE, Denmarl’s 2005 energy intensity (unit of energy consumed to unit of GDP produced) was 5,173 BTUs per 2000 U.S. dollar. That compares to 9,113 BTUs/$ for the United States.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
mpowell,
14: That’s really smooth Mixner. Take the GDP/capita numbers (in which Danes fare better), then switch to the PPP numbers
Er, “the PPP numbers” ARE GDP/capita numbers. Don’t you know that? PPP is generally considered the best way of comparing GDP for the purpose of “standard of living” comparisons, because they more accurately reflect the prices of goods and services to consumers than currency-based comparisons.
and then claim that these still magically fail to capture such factors as the cost of driving a car in Denmark.
They don’t “magically” fail to capture that. They provide a poorer measure of the actual material circumstances of people’s lives, including driving, than consumption-based comparisons.
Actually, since I’m pretty sure that since Denmark provides a much more robust social safety net and has a lower gini index then the US, the median citizen in Denmark is actually doing better than the PPP numbers suggest.
GDP encompasses the value of all products and services produced by an economy, including the value of services provided by a government “social safety net.” If you think you have evidence showing that the standard-of-living gap between the “median” citizen in Denmark and the “median” citizen in the United States is less than suggested by the PPP GDP/capita figures, you are welcome to present it.
Also, it’s patently ridiculous to give America credit for ‘geographic diversity’ in comparison to Denmark.
In that case, it’s “patently ridiculous” to give Denmark “credit” for its oil and gas deposits that it sells to other countries to obtain the money needed to provide goods and services for its own citizens. But no one mentioned “credit,” anyway. Regardless of whether either nation deserves “credit” for its natural resource wealth, the fact is that the U.S. provides a much richer, more diverse variety of cultures and lifestyles to its citizens than a small homogenous nation like Denmark does.
Citizens of Denmark can travel all over Europe with hardly any difference in convenience compared to inter state domestic travel by Americans.
Utter nonsense. Language, currency, culture and legal restrictions on residency and employment are obviously a much greater obstacle to travel within Europe, even within the EU, than travel between states in the U.S. There is no “United States of Europe” and it doesn’t seem like there ever will be. Referendums on measures intended to increase the economic and political integration of Europe have recently been rejected by voters in several European countries.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
DTM,
Denmarl’s 2005 energy intensity (unit of energy consumed to unit of GDP produced) was 5,173 BTUs per 2000 U.S. dollar. That compares to 9,113 BTUs/$ for the United States.
Not terribly relevant. The production of some kinds of goods and services is simply much more energy intensive than others. If, as our Danish friend “Limagolf” says, Denmark has “no domestic industrial production to speak of” it’s not terribly surprising that its energy intensity is lower than that of the U.S., which has a highly industrialized economic base.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Well, what exactly is it that we should do to be like the Danes? Should we quadruple our population density to equal theirs? Might make a difference. Shall we alter our climate to something like Denmark’s, where it never gets hotter than 80 and it never drops below freezing? That would certainly save on energy costs. And while we’re doing that, we should increase our rainfall to 70 inches a year, so we don’t have to use so much energy on growing food. Works for them. And we should probably locate ourselves to within 500 miles of France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK…that way we could just buy the stuff we need with our enormous oil wealth and eliminate all our manufacturing and trans-oceanic shipping costs…
Sorry to be a grouch, but neither of Yglesias’ posts, nor Friedman’s article, offer more than a brief nod at the huge geographical, political, cultural and economic differences between the US and Denmark. I’m sure their are plenty of practical Danish energy innovations we could copy, so wouldn’t it be better to actually discuss those in detail rather than toss out bullshit like walking in the rain and burning more coal?
August 11th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Well, what exactly is it that we should do to be like the Danes?
Pursue policies that leave us less vulnerable to fluctuations in the oil market in the future, rather than assuming that this current problem will pass.
If you read the previous thread on this topic, you’d have noticed how Denmark enacted strict regulations with respect to home insulation, for example. 30 years later, there’s a lot less lost energy through residential buildings than there was in the past.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
21: Well, in actual dollar amounts, the people of Denmark actually make more than the Americans. I suppose you can claim that it is even more expensive to live in Denmark than the PPP adjusted GDP numbers suggest, but since they have already significantly detracted from the raw dollar values, I have to regard this as a pretty questionable fact-free assertion until you do so.
Also, note the subtle difference between mean GDP/capita and median. (I know Republicans tend to have trouble with this distinction) Denmark does better than the US here so the typical Denmark citizen may be better off than the numbers suggest, and a social security net provides more value than the actual compensation awarded to citizens. Think of it as social insurance. Or another way of thinking about it: it provides me with value if I’m living in Denmark, even if I’m not currently using it.
Finally, it is rather rich to complain of cultural factors restricting travel in Europe when complaining that Europe does not provide as much diversity as the United States. There are certainly a few diverse areas in the US, but if you’re living in middle America, you have to travel a much longer way to experience a substantial cultural difference. Not to mention the fact that you may not have the vacation time to travel, even if you can afford it. To travel 200 hundred miles in Europe may be more inconvenient than to travel the same distance in the United States, but it will probably get you (effectively) a lot further from home. Wherever the precise balance lies, it is simply ridiculous to directly compare the diversity of Denmark to the United States, given the obvious foreign travel options in Denmark (while it is debatable as to how they compare to domestic travel options in the US, they are without a doubt superior to the foreign travel options originating in the States).
August 11th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
To travel 200 hundred miles in Europe may be more inconvenient than to travel the same distance in the United States
I’ve been traveling to Europe since the ’80s, and I can say that as of the last five years, this statement is unequivocally false, provided one stays within EU borders.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Shall we alter our climate to something like Denmark’s, where it never gets hotter than 80 and it never drops below freezing?
Hmm … According to Wikipedia, “The winters are not particularly cold with mean temperatures in January and February of 0.0 °C”. If the mean temperature is freezing, I think it must fall below freezing at some point during the winter.
You need a better class of troll, Matt.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
MIxner as usual is filling this thread with nonsesene.
More difficult to travel with-in the EU than between states? Huh maybe in 1983. You can freely cross borders within the EU just like goign from NY to NJ.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
26: I wouldn’t disagree with you, I was just hedging my position based on the potential language differences in Europe. But I think this would be extremely minor and potentially offset by the advantage of rail transit option in Europe.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
29: I wasn’t disagreeing with you, either. I just don’t respond to Mixner directly, except to make fun of him.
And yes! Rail travel! The best form of transit known to man! All must bow down before its superiority to the automobile.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Language, currency, culture and legal restrictions on residency and employment are obviously a much greater obstacle to travel within Europe, even within the EU, than travel between states in the U.S.
Not really.
Everybody but us, the UK and Sweden is using Euros these days, and we can freely cross the borders, we just need to bring some ID. As for language and culture… that’s why we travel fer crissakes!
If Paris and France was no different from Copenhagen, I wouldn’t be going there next week.
Mixner, how on Earth can you claim that the US provides a greater varieties of lifestyles the Europe, even if we are talking EU-15?! That’s just patently riduclous.
Instead revert to the beginning of the topic, and explain why any of the things you mention keeps individual US states from demanding more insulation in housing (housing responsible for 40% of Europes energy usage) or taxing resources instead of work?
Nothing, is what.
And perhaps I should have been more clear about Denmarks industrial base. We have industry, just not much heavy industry.
But neither does many US states.
/Limagolf
August 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
…keeps individual US states from demanding more insulation in housing…
Well, right now the fact that housing values are decreasing at a rate of 15% per year and that the US is suffering 1,000,000 foreclosures per month would probably prevent the goverment from demanding people invest thousands in home insulation improvements right now. Especially considering that the houses with the crappiest insulation are low-income homes.
But, that won’t last forever, I hope.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Not really.
Yes, really.
Everybody but us, the UK and Sweden is using Euros these days, and we can freely cross the borders, we just need to bring some ID. As for language and culture… that’s why we travel fer crissakes!
Er, only 15 of the 27 EU member states have adopted the Euro. The free movement of people, goods and workers within the EU is a formal goal of the union, but there are all sorts of legal and bureaucratic restrictions, qualifications and exceptions that present significant obstacles to such movement. There is also significant hostility among the populations of wealthier EU nations in western europe towards immigrants from newer, poorer EU member states in eastern europe who move west looking for jobs and a better standard of living. The idea that the situation is remotely comparable to the free movement of goods, workers and people between states within the U.S. is laughable. There is no United States of Europe, and judging by recent referenda in which European voters have rejected tighter political and economic integration of EU member states, there isn’t likely to be in the future.
Mixner, how on Earth can you claim that the US provides a greater varieties of lifestyles the Europe, even if we are talking EU-15?!
You’ve got to be kidding. The U.S. encompasses a vast, vast range of cultures and climates and geographies and lifestyles: the lush tropical islands of Hawaii, the cowboys of the northern plains states, the Indian reservations of the desert southwest, the hyperurban lifestyle of Manhattan, the beach communities of Florida and southern California, rural farming communities in the midwest, the Amish in Pennsylvania, the Mormons in Utah, the Orthodox Jewish communities of New York, ice fishermen in Alaska and so on and so forth. All Americans. All sharing a common currency, a common central government, a common President, a common nationality. Free to live and work and travel and go to school anywhere in the country without papers or visas or passports or other restrictions. No remotely comparable diversity of lifestyle and experience is available in Europe. It’s no wonder the U.S. is so overwhelmingly dominant as a source of music and movies and TV and books and fashions and trends and innovation. Its culture is simply much more diverse and creative and vital and forward-looking than staid old Europe. And the population of Europe is shrinking and aging rapidly, while the population of the U.S. is growing and is constantly enriched by immigrants.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
mpowell,
Well, in actual dollar amounts, the people of Denmark actually make more than the Americans.
Utterly meaningless. What matters is how much they can buy with what they make. The quality and amount of housing, transportation, food, clothing, health care, entertainment, education, etc. Both GDP and consumption data indicate that Americans can buy a lot more stuff than Danes can.
Also, note the subtle difference between mean GDP/capita and median. (I know Republicans tend to have trouble with this distinction) Denmark does better than the US here
Sorry, you have produced no evidence whatsoever to support this claim. I ask again: where is your evidence that the “median” Dane “does better” than the “median” American?
August 11th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Denmark’s Gini index: 24
US’ Gini index: 46
. . .
August 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Sorry, I mean,
“Denmark”’s Gini “index”: 24
“US”’s Gini “index”: 46
August 11th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Germans also emit less carbon on average than Americans. You know, the country that makes the BMW’s and Volkswagens the Danes buy. We’re probably not going to go down as low as Denmark can due to density, but we are more unnecessarily wasteful than just about any country save Qatar and UAE. Things like having higher CAFE standards and better insulating our houses can help. Having more of a social norm against leaving the lights and air conditioning on when we leave home for the day can help (there is a reason why dorms with primarily American international students have to bring in extra generators, considering how often we as a people seem to forget to do basic things like this). When you think carbon is free and costless, you don’t work to preserve it. What all of these do is cut down on inefficiency. It doesn’t improve our quality of life to be inefficient.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
DMonteith, comparing the Gini Index doesn’t tell you anything meaningful about the relative standard of living of the “median” citizen. A relatively small number of extremely rich people can greatly increase the index.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
would prevent the goverment from demanding people invest thousands in home insulation improvements right now
On one hand, we’re supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world. On the other hand, we’re too poor to improve our infrastructure to become more energy efficient.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Dunno who Mixner’s talking to, but possibly he should look over the definitions of “median” income, mean “income”, and “the” Gini index.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
RM,
Germans also emit less carbon on average than Americans. You know, the country that makes the BMW’s and Volkswagens the Danes buy.
Germany has a much higher population density than the U.S. and much older, more compact cities. That means Germans do much less travelling than Americans. Germany also has a much more temperate climate than the U.S. That means Germans have much less need for heating and air conditioning. Transportation, heating and cooling are major sources of energy consumption and carbon emissions.
I see that Romania has much lower per capita carbon emissions than Germany (less than half of Germany’s, in fact). Given that you attach so much importance to reducing carbon emissions, do you think Germans should adopt the lifestyles of Romanians, in order to cut their emissions?
Indonesia is lower still. Less than half the per capita emissions of Romania. Should Germans start living like Indonesians, in your view?
August 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I’m talking to you, DMonteith. Sorry, I mean “you.” What about the definitions of “median” income, mean “income”, and “the” Gini index? Sorry, I mean what “about” the “definitions” of “median” income, mean “income”, and “the” Gini index? Do you have any kind of actual argument to present, or is it just more of your usual incoherent fragments of half-baked thoughts?
August 11th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Mixner,
1) You have an incorrect understanding of PPP. I advise you review it. It accounts for the currency not going as far in purchasing goods.
2) In a way, you could say PPP provides a way to creating equality in consumption ability. You could call it purchasing power parity, say. Now, see if you can follow this train of thought:
Yes, the average Dane has less purchasing power than the average American, though not hugely so. Income distributions, however, are known to have a long tail; this can create misleading statistical artifacts. Suppose you have two countries, with PPP adjusted incomes {10, 10, 10, 10, 210} and {30, 30, 30, 30, 30}. The mean income in the first is 50, and in the second 30. Most people, however, recognize that the people in the second country are better off. People in the comments are making this argument with respect to the US-Denmark comparison. Though more to say that you can’t take the PPP-adjusted incomes at face value, not necessarily to say that Danes are better off than Americans.
3) You’re not providing a fair basis of comparison in claiming that Americans get better quality for their goods than Danes. You use the ability to buy muscle cars and McMansions as a proxy for the quality of consumption. Not all countries, however, use those.
Just as an example, if you go to Rome in southern Italy, which itself is a rather undeveloped area, you can see plenty of middle class people walking around in Ferragamos, because they’re much cheaper than in the USA (in fact, before the dollar collapsed and flights became so expensive, people would fly overseas to take advantage of this feature). Even in better developed regions of the USA, however, few people can afford them. They’re a luxury good limited to elitists and people who made their fortune by marrying beer heiresses.
Yeah, trite example, but individual consumer goods tend to be much better in Europe than the USA.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Well, we could all start living like Californians. Would that help any? According to EIA figures, California uses about 232 million BTU per capita per year, compared to 339 million nationwide. Yes, the climate’s fairly mild in parts of California, and that certainly has something to do with it – Alaska crests 1 billion, and Texas 500 million, but Washington and Oregon are both over 300 million as well.
I bring up California because they’ve been making conscientious efforts at improving energy economy for the past 30 years, when the rest of the country was trying to stop laughing at the President in the cardigan, and have gotten things down to the point where they can save 5 kW of power for the cost of producing 1 kW. All that’s needed from there on in is time.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“Denmark is not a city state, but is very much a part of Europe’s inner market, which is very comparable to the US.
The notion that you cannot compare large and small countries is laughable.”
Comparisons between large and small nations are fraught will all sorts of problems. Rather than comparing Denmark to the US, it would be much more telling to compare it to Massachusetts or Connecticut, which are much more similar in terms of size, demographics, and climate than the broader US.
European emissions in general are lower than the US, but many statistics concerning this are severely distored by imports and exports. Simply put, Europeans have off-shored more of their “dirty-work” like farming, mining, and manufacturing, than Americans have. Additionally, Europe has a much milder climate as compared to the US, resulting in less energy use for the same level of comfort. It is not a coincidence that emissions are much higher in the US, Canada, and Australia than in other advanced nations. Rather, it is the logical outcome of nations that are (relatively) sparsely populated, have extreme climates, and have large areas for resource extraction and farming.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“Zephyrus”
You could call it purchasing power parity, say.
I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand PPP. Not only “could” you call PPP “purchasing power parity.” Those are in fact the words “PPP” stand for. PPP attempts to make an apples-to-apples comparison of living standards based on the purchasing power of the local currency to consumers in each country. This is in contrast to comparisons based on market exchange rates of different currencies, which provide much less accurate valuations of purchasing power.
Yes, the average Dane has less purchasing power than the average American, though not hugely so.
Americans have about 23% more purchasing power than Danes, according to the OECD’s PPP data. A consumption-based comparison of living standards would probably show an even greater advantage for Americans.
Income distributions, however, are known to have a long tail; this can create misleading statistical artifacts. Suppose you have two countries, …
If you’re suggesting that the differences in living standards between “median” Americans and “median” Danes are less than the PPP numbers suggest, then rather than making up a story about two mythical countries, which tells us precisely nothing, you need to produce actual evidence to support your hypothesis.
You use the ability to buy muscle cars and McMansions as a proxy for the quality of consumption. Not all countries, however, use those.
I didn’t make any kind of comparison on the basis of muscle cars and McMansions. I did note that housing in Denmark is smaller than housing in the U.S. and that driving is more expensive in Denmark than in the U.S. Size and quality of housing and transportation are among the most important components of standard of living.
Yeah, trite example, but individual consumer goods tend to be much better in Europe than the USA.
Highly implausible. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“It’s true that Denmark produces some oil domestically (as does the United States, even with the offshore drilling moratorium in place)”
Not “some oil.” We forget that the USA is the #3 oil producing nation in the world. The problem is we use 3 times what we produce.
Regards.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
It’s times like this I wonder if you even have a point. A lot of nations have things that can help them reduce their carbon footprint vis-a-vis others, but those features aren’t destiny. Most of your post is a bunch of strawmen and in bad faith, but I don’t expect much from you, Mars colony boy.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Yes, the climate’s fairly mild in parts of California, and that certainly has something to do with it – Alaska crests 1 billion, and Texas 500 million, but Washington and Oregon are both over 300 million as well.
Considering the least mild areas* in California are comparable to Washington and Oregon, comparing California to WA and OR is a bad example. Especially when you consider that WA and OR are very green friendly places. You’re not helping your case with these comparisons.
Sadly, Mixner mixes in a whole bunch of shoddy, simplistic thinking in between his valid points and ends up hurting his point.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
It’s times like this I wonder if you even have a point.
Oh, I think you understand the point perfectly well, which is why your response is the usual evasion and waffle. But just to make it perfectly clear, the point with respect to your comparison between Germany and the U.S. is that if Germany were as sparsely populated as the U.S. and had a climate as variable and extreme as America’s climate its per capita carbon emissions would probably be substantially higher, maybe as high as America’s. But your anti-Americanism is so extreme that you naturally attribute the difference to what you imagine to be “wasteful” American policies and lifestyles.
And the point with respect to broader international comparisons is your suggestion that German policies and lifestyles are somehow better than or preferable to American policies and lifestyles because Germans produce less carbon per capita than Americans. By that stupid argument, Romania’s policies and lifestyles are better than Germany’s, and Indonesia’s are better than both. I somehow doubt you’ll start living like an Indonesian any time soon.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Sadly, Mixner mixes in a whole bunch of shoddy, simplistic thinking in between his valid points and ends up hurting his point.
Ah yes, yet another rendition of “Mixner is wrong about something. But I’m not actually going to identify what it is or why I think it’s wrong. That way, my accusation remains irrefutably vague.”
August 12th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Conn Carroll and Heritage are full of horse manure if they are peddling the “fact” that Denmark imports 145 million tons of coal a year. Even Britain, more than ten times the population, in its 1970s coal heyday, didn’t use much more than that. That is a bald-faced lie but does not surprise me coming from Heritage.
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Denmark actually used about 6.5 million tons in 2005, after several years of steady decline from the all-time peak of 16.5 million in 1996.
http://indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=dk&product=coal&graph=consumption
The above cites EIA data.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Mixner, the Gini index provides exactly that.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:55 am
It’s always hilarious to watch a certain type of ugly American go on about how people in the US are so much wealthier than almost anybody in the rest of the world – this meme seems to be inherent to their self-esteem. All sorts of statistics are twisted to support this erroneous assumption, ignoring the simple and easily observable truth, that your average US citizen is by no means richer or has a better quality of life, than your average EU 15 citizen.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:09 am
The free movement of people, goods and workers within the EU is a formal goal of the union, but there are all sorts of legal and bureaucratic restrictions, qualifications and exceptions that present significant obstacles to such movement.
Not really, it works pretty well, at least amongst the old EU-15.
Some restrictions were put in place with the newer members, but as a rule I can travel and work anywhere within the EU I want to, without any trouble.
You’ve got to be kidding. The U.S. encompasses a vast, vast range of cultures and climates and geographies and lifestyles:
First of all, The European nations have comparable lifestyles to the ones you mention, plus loads more.
But that is besides the point. The individual European countries have more differing lifestyles than the US, with cultures and traditions going thousands of years back.
The US is much more homogenous, given that most of your history is less than 200 years old.
Please answer me Mixner, have you ever been to Europe? You seem awfully ill informed about it.
/Limagolf
August 12th, 2008 at 7:48 am
145 tons of coal?!?
The following is statistics from the Danish government:
Denmark’s yearly coal import 1990-2007 in mill. tons:
1990: 7.5
1991: 10.8
1992: 10.9
1992: 9.6
1994: 11.2
1995: 12.6
1996: 12.1
1997: 13.7
1998: 7.8
1999: 6.8
2000: 6.2
2001: 6.6
2002: 6.0
2003: 9.0
2004: 7.0
2005: 5.6
2006: 8.5
2007: 7.7
Source: http://www.folketinget.dk/samling/20072/almdel/EPU/spm/169/svar/endeligt/20080515/559355.HTM (official answer to a question from the opposition)
August 12th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Please answer me Mixner, have you ever been to Europe? You seem awfully ill informed about it.
I’m pretty sure that Mixner is an American expat living in acity like London or Paris who takes public transportation to work every day, but just enjoys trolling around, spreading the gospel of sprawl and singing the siren song of cheap energy.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 9:38 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 17th, 2009 at 3:38 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra