Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
The so called "rebound effect" is a supposed refinement applied to smaller slices of time & market to predict efficiency feedback.
All one needs to validate Jevon, is to look at the energy consumption graph over the last 100 years.
It's quite clear at this point, that despite any efficiency gains or conservation programs, our actual energy use has sky-rocketed.
If that's not Jevon's Paradox, then it's a very well concealed mechanism... with the exact same effect. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Pixie wrote:
But now yare ou telling me that increased efficiency was the causitive factor in an increase in crude oil burned--as opposed to increased supply from the Saudis, increased supply from the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay, and the resulting price crash?
Didn't say that. I said I posted several graphs with data to show that efficiency gains resulted in increased use, not less. Look at the data graphs and look at what was compared. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Aaron wrote:
The so called "rebound effect" is a supposed refinement applied to smaller slices of time & market to predict efficiency feedback.
All one needs to validate Jevon, is to look at the energy consumption graph over the last 100 years.
It's quite clear at this point, that despite any efficiency gains or conservation programs, our actual energy use has sky-rocketed.
If that's not Jevon's Paradox, then it's a very well concealed mechanism... with the exact same effect.
And as noted previously, it was not due to population growth as use skyrocketed over 100% beyond population growth. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MonteQuest wrote:
And as noted previously, it was not due to population growth as use skyrocketed over 100% beyond population growth.
Then why does Duncans energy graph remain flat, per capita, from 1979 to when he wrote his Gorge paper?
Seems like if you take population into account, what that is saying is energy use is flat when taking population growth into account? Which means we AREN'T using 100% more energy beyond population growth? Has Duncans slide into the Gorge reversed since he wrote the paper?
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2620 Location: The Urban Village
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
In some sense, Jevons is interesting, but maybe you can tell me how (if) it applys to this statement.
We have purposefuly constructed a society that requires a fair amount of *work* (force over distance) to be performed in order to conduct our daily lives (e.g. moving long distance to get to work every day). No matter how *efficient* (work returned for energy input) you make that work, in the end it will be a losing proposition to continue making simple acts needed for survival *require* this amount of *work*.
The most you can hope for is that efficiency buys more time before you run out of energy to apply to that work. Jevons, however implies that even this isn't the case as the efficiency leads to changes that increase even more the work that is performed/required and then when the party is over the hangover will be that much worse.
So, for example, moving close to where you work is fundamentally different (and "better") than getting a more efficient conveyance.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
ClubOfRomeII wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
And as noted previously, it was not due to population growth as use skyrocketed over 100% beyond population growth.
Then why does Duncans energy graph remain flat, per capita, from 1979 to when he wrote his Gorge paper?
Seems like if you take population into account, what that is saying is energy use is flat when taking population growth into account? Which means we AREN'T using 100% more energy beyond population growth? Has Duncans slide into the Gorge reversed since he wrote the paper?
As noted previously...vehicle miles versus population.
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
You folks know there's a pretty large difference between correlation and causality, right? VMT went up while gas prices dropped. Great. If you don't go any further, then you've established a positive correlation. If you want to prove causality then you have to go further. In the process you have to demonstrate the degree to which cheaper gas prices resulted in increased VMT. That particular dynamic, regardless of magnitude, is Jevon's Paradox. I think it's safe to write that we are all in agreement to this point.
The point of contention seems to be the presence and magnitude of the other dynamics. I contend that the VMT response to cheaper gas prices was small relative to other dynamics. For example, the desire to flee crowded, blighted urban areas. There are others of which I am privy. If I haven't already fleshed those out on this thread long ago, I will gladly do so upon request.
COR, I believe I once posted several papers from the System Dynamics literature on topics ranging from conservation dynamics to automobile diffusion dynamics. I have to search for them, but know that this is probably the field you want to scour for actual quantitative analyses on conservation and efficiency dynamics and responses.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Its not so important that Jerdon's Doohicky causes something, as it is to show that it permits it. New uses become possible when the price goes down. The selection of the new use causes the consumption of that previously conserved quantity; but the paradox permitted it to be that way. _________________ abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MonteQuest wrote:
As noted previously...vehicle miles versus population.
See, here I was thinking we were back to talking energy, not just vehicles and miles and stuff.
Americans weird fasination with cars is some sort of freak, crude hog example, Duncan was doing energy, and for the planet, and per capita, and we've been doing pretty good in that arena.
Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 2620 Location: The Urban Village
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
rwwff wrote:
Its not so important that Jerdon's Doohicky causes something, as it is to show that it permits it. New uses become possible when the price goes down. The selection of the new use causes the consumption of that previously conserved quantity; but the paradox permitted it to be that way.
Yes. There were numerous enablers and accelerants such as HUGE subsidies in road construction, federal loans that applied to new construction and not to rennovation and the marketing etc. and of course the fact that it was during the time of increasing energy availability
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
rwwff wrote:
Its not so important that Jerdon's Doohicky causes something, as it is to show that it permits it. New uses become possible when the price goes down. The selection of the new use causes the consumption of that previously conserved quantity; but the paradox permitted it to be that way.
It is important simply because the case of auto utilization growth is being used (erroniously) by some to buttress the flawed hypothesis that conservation & efficiency are ineffectual, even counter-productive activities.
Again, the reinforcing feedback labeled as Jevon's Paradox is just one part of the whole picture. It's important to consider and include in any analysis, but its not even clear that its the dominant dynamic in many of the conservation/efficiency/tech. transfer case studies I've seen in the system dynamics literature. It certainly doesn't fully explain the response we can expect to see as a result of increased efficiency/conservation.
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
DigitalCubano wrote:
It is important simply because the case of auto utilization growth is being used (erroniously) by some to buttress the flawed hypothesis that conservation & efficiency are ineffectual, even counter-productive activities.
Hypothesis? Jevon's Paradox is not some theory or possible prediction, it is an observation of reality.
Put something on sale and people will buy more of it.
That's a fact. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
DigitalCubano wrote:
It is important simply because the case of auto utilization growth is being used (erroniously) by some to buttress the flawed hypothesis that conservation & efficiency are ineffectual, even counter-productive activities.
I don't think many are saying that conservation is a counter-productive activity; but rather, they are suggesting that conservation will not reduce the total amount of petroleum consumed by humans. I think its overrated to call it a paradox though, rather it is a simple expression of supply, demand, and price. It is clear that at $60 / bbl; the world is perfectly happy to consume the full available supply.
Conservation, to its credit, does allow one to get more useful work out of any particular barrel of oil; which is an ethically good thing all by itself.
I think the point of the doohicky is that we should not expect the world to consume less than current production, by whatever means work out to be the most economically convenient.
Quote:
It certainly doesn't fully explain the response we can expect to see as a result of increased efficiency/conservation.
Since many of the large actors that can have an effect on the dynamic system have full freedom to choose various levels of consumption; any model you build is going to be subject to large errors as a result of assumptions you make about those choices. If Hu Jintao gets a bug in his shorts about filling strategic reserves at any price, that decision will completely overwhelm any effects of conservation or efficiency; or say Putin decides it is now in Russia's long term interests to reduce the velocity of exports so as to extend their duration; that too will obliterate such a model. Even Bush with command of the SPR can apply or relieve pressure for a short time on a whim. _________________ abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MonteQuest wrote:
Hypothesis? Jevon's Paradox is not some theory or possible prediction, it is an observation of reality.
From this quote its obvious that either your understanding of Jevon's paradox is flawed, or you're purposely and conveniently omitting 90% of what I just wrote to perpetuate your erronious perception of the causalities behind increased VMT and your flawed hypothesis that conservation/efficiency is ineffective.
MonteQuest wrote:
Put something on sale and people will buy more of it.
That's a fact.
Here, let me hold your hand: no one disputes that intuition, rather that it explains the entirety of conservation/efficiency dynamics, especially in the case you keep citing. It doesn't. That was the whole point of my past two posts.
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
DigitalCubano wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Hypothesis? Jevon's Paradox is not some theory or possible prediction, it is an observation of reality.
From this quote its obvious that either your understanding of Jevon's paradox is flawed, or you're purposely and conveniently omitting 90% of what I just wrote to perpetuate your erronious perception of the causalities behind increased VMT and your flawed hypothesis that conservation/efficiency is ineffective.
Sorry DC but apparently your understanding of what's being said is flawed. It appears that at least some people seem to think that Jevons is being held out as a theory or hypothesis that somehow explains why conservation is a waste of time. Please note:
Quote:
hypothesis:
1)a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2)a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
3)guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
When we get into speculating about why conservation leads to increased consumption, then we are theorizing or hypothesizing. Jevons did not theorize or hypothesize about the whys and wherefores; he merely reported the fact of the observed phenomenon that increased efficiency resulted in increased overall consumption. Neither a theory nor hypothesis; an observation of what happens.
I really don't think that anyone here believes that conservation is a bad idea. The point that is being made is that conservation is not a solution, in and of itself, to dwindling energy supplies, because the evidence of history indicates that increased efficiency leads (as Jevons rightly observed) to increased overall consumption, even tho' in the short term it may reduce it.
The most that conservation can do is buy us some time to adapt to a shrinking energy supply, but only if we actually use that cushion to make the needed adjustments instead of continuing the historical pattern of finding more ways to accelerate our use of the perceived windfall. _________________ "It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
