Soft Energy Path - Soft Vs Hard

Soft Vs Hard

Lovins viewed the energy problem not one of an insufficient supply of oil and other conventional energy sources, but rather as one of inefficient energy use, coupled with lack of development of renewable energy sources. Lovins argued that conventional energy production was both energy intensive and a source of substantial pollution. With his reformulation of the energy problem, "environmentalists criticized plans for large-scale energy developments, especially those relying heavily on nuclear power".

The "soft energy path" assumes that energy is but a means to social ends, and is not an end in itself. Soft energy paths involve efficient use of energy, diversity of energy production methods (matched in scale and quality to end uses), and special reliance on co-generation and "soft energy technologies" such as solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, geothermal energy, wave power, tidal power, etc.

Lovins explained that the most profound difference between the soft and hard paths — the difference that ultimately distinguishes them — is their different socio-political impact. Both paths entail social change, "but the kinds of social change for a hard path are apt to be less pleasant, less plausible, less compatible with social diversity and freedom of choice, and less consistent with traditional values than are the social changes which could make a soft path work".