Energy intensity

Bush's favorite way to discuss energy is in terms of "energy intensity" of an economy, that is, the amount of energy used (or pollution output) per unit of GDP. When I went looking for stats, I was surprised to see that as of 2004, China's economy was actually more efficient than the US (ref 1). I'm sure that has changed in the last few years, but we're still not talking about huge differences between China and the US, just fractions. And this is despite the fact that all of China's recent economic growth has been based on construction and manufacturing, while ours has been in services--consulting, i-banking, dot coms--that are far less energy intensive industries.

I can only account for this because of our horrible leadership. Bush is probably the most backwards leader on the planet regarding energy. None of the candidates for 2008 are anywhere near as bad as he has been. We have stood in the way of climate change agreements (ref 2), and our standards for efficiency are lower than even China's (ref 3, p. 9). At least China and India have the excuse that they have hundreds of millions of people living without access to electricity, and they should be able to expand their infrastructure enough to get those people the bare minimum. Our excuse is that, as the richest economy in the world, we can't afford to adapt? That we developed the Hummer, and aren't about to stop driving it?

Furthermore, I have a philosophical disagreement with the concept of energy intensity. As we learn in high school econ, GDP is made up of government expenditures + investment + net exports + consumption, with consumption being the majority. Why then should we be allowed more emissions since we consume more than other countries? Our standard of living is the highest, our consumption is the highest, why should this give us the right to pollute more?

Finally, the common argument that we can't afford to adapt our economy to be more energy efficient is backwards. Many conservation measures, for example green buildings, will have a net positive effect on our economy. They pay for themselves within a year or two, and then save money for their entire lifetime after that, which, for a building, could be 100 years. Second, developing the skills and technologies to conserve and use renewable energy will be a huge growth factor in whatever economy takes on the challenge. If we let Germany or Japan build the best solar cells, then we are sacrificing a market that is potentially worth trillions of dollars. Shouldn't we try to be the world leader in these new industries? We have seen what happens to our auto industry when they fail to innovate--they become overtaken by more efficient Japanese cars. Let's not let this happen to the rest of our economy.


References
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Energy_Intensity.png
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17mon1.html?ex=1355634000&en=890e7680d210f8c4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
3. http://theicct.org/documents/ICCT_GlobalStandards_20071.pdf page 9