[GavinB]

This is a bizarre comparison. The problem with the oil spill isn't the lost energy, it's the destruction and the cost of clean-up.

The implication of this article is that retrofitting 75k homes somehow cancels out or equals an oil spill. At best, this amount of retrofitting reduces the risk of an oil spill slightly because one fewer rig would be built.

When a carpenter drops a beam on his foot, we can't say that the architect should have used one fewer beam to prevent the accident. Energy efficiency is great, but by itself, the amount of oil lost in the oil spill isn't really relevant to any cost-benefit analysis.

[rauljara]

You miss the point of the article. The article isn't saying that retrofitting 75,000 homes would "cancel out" the spill. The article is saying that the that would have been produced by that well could be saved by retrofitting 75,000 homes. I.e., it wouldn't have been necessary to drill that well if we had retrofitted 75,000 homes instead. Which is also a shaky argument, because proponents of oil would argue that extra oil would help to bring down the overall costs of energy, so we should drill even if we don't strictly "need" to. But I agree with the authors that investments in increased energy efficiency would be preferable to investments in oil drilling.

[dasil003]

It's even shakier than that because what does the amount of energy currently spilled have to do with anything? Presumably they have planned to extract several orders of magnitude more oil from this well than what has spilled.

[aarong]

You are right that it's not an apples/apples comparison regarding environmental damage, destruction, loss of life, etc... No question.

The comparison isn't really trying to do that though. I think the point is to compare "oil spill economics" with energy efficiency economics.

That we have the rig in the first place is the issue...