A textbook death spiral

NPR has a nice article on self-regulation in the textbook industry. It turns out that textbook prices are up almost 100% from 2002, yet student spending on texts is nearly flat. (See the article for concise data.)

Here’s part of the structure that explains the data:

Starting with a price increase, students have a lot of options: they can manage textbooks more intensively (e.g., sharing, brown), they can simply choose to use fewer (substitution, blue), they can adopt alternatives that emerge after a delay (red), and they can extend the life of a given text by being quick to sell them back, or an agent can do that on their behalf by creating a rental fleet (green).

All of these options help students to hold spending to a desired level, but they have the unintended effect of triggering a variant of the utility death spiral. As unit sales (purchasing) fall, the unit cost of producing textbooks rises, due to the high fixed costs of developing and publishing the materials. That drives up prices, promping further reductions in purchasing – a vicious cycle.

This isn’t quite the whole story – there’s more to the supply side to think about. If publishers are facing a margin squeeze from rising costs, are they offering fewer titles, for example? I leave that as an exercise.

Missing the point about efficiency rebounds … again

Breakthrough’s Nordhaus and Shellenberger (N&S) spot a bit of open-loop thinking about LED lighting:

ON Tuesday, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded the 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics to three researchers whose work contributed to the development of a radically more efficient form of lighting known as light-emitting diodes, or LEDs.

In announcing the award, the academy said, “Replacing light bulbs and fluorescent tubes with LEDs will lead to a drastic reduction of electricity requirements for lighting.” The president of the Institute of Physics noted: “With 20 percent of the world’s electricity used for lighting, it’s been calculated that optimal use of LED lighting could reduce this to 4 percent.”

The problem of course is that lighting energy use would fall 20% to 4% only if there’s no feedback, so that LEDs replace incandescents 1 for 1 (and of course the multiplier can’t be that big, because CFLs and other efficient technologies already supply a lot of light).

N&S go on to argue:

But it would be a mistake to assume that LEDs will significantly reduce overall energy consumption.

Why? Because rebound effects will eat up the efficiency gains:

“The growing evidence that low-cost efficiency often leads to faster energy growth was recently considered by both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency.”

“The I.E.A. and I.P.C.C. estimate that the rebound could be over 50 percent globally.”

Notice the sleight-of-hand: the first statement implies a rebound effect greater than 100%, while the evidence they’re citing describes a rebound of 50%, i.e. 50% of the efficiency gain is preserved, which seems pretty significant.

Presumably the real evidence they have in mind is http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/43/35/354001 – authors Tsao & Saunders are Breakthrough associates. Saunders describes a 100% rebound for lighting here http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/understanding-energy-efficiency-rebound-interview-with-harry-saunders

Now the big non sequitur:

But LED and other ultraefficient lighting technologies are unlikely to reduce global energy consumption or reduce carbon emissions. If we are to make a serious dent in carbon emissions, there is no escaping the need to shift to cleaner sources of energy.

Let’s assume the premise is true – that the lighting rebound effect is 100% or more. That implies that lighting use is highly price elastic, which in turn means that an emissions price like a carbon tax will have a strong influence on lighting energy. Therefore pricing can play a major role in reducing emissions. It’s probably still true that a shift to clean energy is unavoidable, but it’s not an exclusive remedy, and a stronger rebound effect actually weakens the argument for clean sources.

Their own colleagues point this out:

In fact, our paper shows that, for the two 2030 scenarios (with and without solid-state lighting), a mere 12% increase in real electricity prices would result in a net decline in electricity-for-lighting consumption.

What should the real takeaway be?

  • Subsidizing lighting efficiency is ineffective, and possibly even counterproductive.
  • Subsidizing clean energy lowers the cost of delivering lighting and other services, and therefore will also be offset by rebound effects.
  • Emissions pricing is a win-win, because it encourages efficiency, counteracts rebound effects and promotes substitution of clean sources.

Doing our bit for the cure … and the cause

I have a soft spot for breast cancer research, but I have to admit that it seemed a little silly when I started getting hay with pink baling twine.

But now it seems the Susan G. Komen foundation for breast cancer has really jumped the shark, with pink drill bits from oilfield service company Baker Hughes. Funding cancer care with revenue derived in part from pumping carcinogens into the ground, providing pinkwash for that practice, seems like rather unsystemic thinking. What’s next, pink cigarettes?

Not so fast?

Maybe Baker Hughes is deriving some enlightenment from the relationship. In a less-noticed bit of news:

As part of our ongoing commitment, we have adopted a new policy with respect to the information that we provide about the chemistry contained within our hydraulic fracturing fluid systems. Beginning October 1, 2014, Baker Hughes will provide a complete, detailed, and public listing of all chemical constituents for all wells that the company fractures using its hydraulic fracturing fluid products.