THE Jevons Paradox Thread (merged)

gg3

Yes, Monte & Aaron set the tone, but we're all free to argue with them, and we very often do.

There is a point at which Jevon's paradox ceases to operate.

And that is the point of "network collapse" in the economy: the point at which the global trade in products, services, and financial instruments breaks down. For a simple example, when it costs more to transport something than it does to produce it locally or use a substitute, people will switch.

Over a period of time, the increasing costs of the embodied energy in all the things we use, will force a reduction in consumption levels.

Conservation will happen in conjunction with an overall contraction in the economy.

Economic contraction is conventionally thought of as recession or depression.

And there is another factor to consider.

This week we've seen two major findings released with respect to the climate crisis. One is that the melting of Arctic ice is now far worse than the worst-case IPCC forecast: the observed melting now, is what it would have been in about another century according to the models. We are a century further down the drain at the North Pole than we should be. The other major finding is that the oceans are apparently absorbing less CO2 than expected, and the rate of absorption is beginning to decline.

It is probable that if we have two data points that are convergent, these are not the only two, and there are more things going on that are examples of climate change occurring far more rapidly than has been expected.

In other words, we don't have any ten years to fix this; the poo is hitting the propeller right now; and the probability of avoiding a catastrophic dieoff of humans is shrinking by the minute.

Nature is going to force our hand whether we like it or not: there will be an "economic contraction" because the number of humans on this planet will drop off to about 1 - 2 billion within the next century or at most two centuries. It's going to be an ugly ride down the slippery slope.

In the face of this, there is a darwinian advantage for those who have learned to live well with fewer resources.

In the past, "be fruitful and multiply" conferred an advantage. In the future, "be frugal and subtract" will confer the advantage.

Conservation at present frees up resources for someone else to squander where you can't see them. When there is network collapse in the economy, the localized gains from conservation won't be offset by wastage elsewhere, they will instead accrue to the benefit of the locales where the conservation occurs.

Contraction of the economy will coincide with expansion of physical labor.

As for all those current auto-centric jobs going into unemployment mode, their kids will have plenty of work to do making horse shoes and carriages and providing feed for the horses. Or they'll just get caught up in the dieoff and drop dead like 2/3 of the rest of humanity.

Aaron

As usual a brilliant analysis GG.

None of it disputes the premise however... people consume to the level of their ability.

In fact, your argument supports the idea that the only significant reduction in consumption will come at gun-point, so to speak.

This exposes the myth of conservation as it applies to fungible commodities like energy. No reductions via conservation are possible, & only scarcity will actually lower consumption.

-----------------------

On another note... I do appreciate the idea that my thoughts may "color" the arguments presented this way or that. But I can hardly avoid the consequences of my convictions... same as anyone.

The alternative is a certain & practiced dishonesty... or silence.

I post under the same rules as everyone else does.

My own staff Moderates my posts if it's warranted.

And of course, folks are free to disagree & point out why they think I'm wrong.

In the end I think it's an instructive exercise to explore topics like Jevon & the effect this may have on a post-peak world.

PAX Friends...
_________________
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.

Praise HawkMan

inculcated

patience · Expert Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Posts: 1412

Great thoughts, gg3 and Aaron! Newbie here, albeit with a long awareness of the problems. My engineer attitude wants to reduce it all to practice. Let's see if I can summarize a general position here.

The rational choice for consumers is to consume when it is cheap, which I have to do, or lose long term advantages of preparation.
The short term illogical consumer choice is to conserve. The long term based choice, in the face of dwindling resources, is to prepare for that time, as this group espouses. And living lightly on the earth NOW, is the moral choice.

Isn't that moral choice a dilemna, though, if we wrongly chose to NOT prepare? Thus, we logically arrive at the idea to maximize our preparations, particularly directed at living sustainably in the future. (A consumer attitude of course wouldn't do that.)

So, being aware of the long term, I (the world, infact) should exploit resources to the max NOW, toward a sustainable future.

This logic seems clear to me. So, I hire the guy with a backhoe to dig me a root cellar, terrace my garden area, etc. Most of my neighbors think I'm nuts, no matter that I argue coming depression. Consumers are what they are.

I tend to think gg3 has a valid point that the breakdown of Jevon will come sooner, rather than later. Tales from the 1930's would seem to bear that out, with a similiar crash on the way, and the rapid climate change he points out. I would add that, if the German Energy Watch Goup's report of Oct. '07 comes true, and oil production drops at their 7%/yr estimate, then Jevon's won't be with us for very long. The triangle of pressures from these events will each augment the others, and Jevon's will be no more.

Aaron

patience · Expert Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Posts: 1412

Aaron, Not really what I was thinking. I agree with your logic, but I wasn't clear. I'm saying that I think demand destruction will negate Jevon's for the duration of, ironically, the depression brought about by high oil prices, and economic chaos in the financial world. Then, if climate change kicks us with a bad series of harvests, we could have Jevon's paradox held off until individual buying power makes oil affordable again. Even though oil prices would decline from demand destruction during a depression, if it's bad enough, consumption would stay down for a time. Is this possible?

Of course, in less dire circumstances, Jevon's comes back, right?

Maybe I'm just making a case for demand destruction for that period?

mos6507

yesplease · Fission Joined: Oct 03, 2006 Posts: 2100

Bingo. Whatever consumption minimizes any need for further consumption while still facilitating the individual's objectives/desires is the best course of action IMO. Course, people are easily led, so instilling the desire to consume/participate in order to gain social leverage via money/power/religion/etc... has been a time honored tradition.
_________________

FiniteQuantity · Coal Joined: May 09, 2008 Posts: 8

Jevons Paradox or no Jevons Paradox - consumption will always increase until we stabilize population. Simple concept but hard for people to grasp because it involves something so sacred.

Aaron

yesplease · Fission Joined: Oct 03, 2006 Posts: 2100

VMarcHart

Greetings! Newbie, here.

So many forums and topics. I don't know exactly where I belong. I'm big in conservation and this is the most popular topic. So I felt this was a good place to introduce myself. Feel free to bounce me to the right spot.

I'm a 14-yr veteran of the energy industry, of which, the last 4 1/2 in wind power development. I delivered 380 MWs of wind power, and just took a job with a fossil-fuel power developer. It will be interesting to be the sole treehugger.

Like I said, I'm big in conservation. Our electric consumption last month was 186kWh, we own one (small) car, walk to work, recycle to death, etc. I drive my wife up the wall. Death by conservation? Totally!

My best friend didn't complete high-school. His friends are at about his level of formal education. I asked at what $/gallon his friends would radically start conserving gasoline. He said $20/gallon. Simply put, the elite --myself and my peers-- is showing very little by example, and the people aspire to become the elite. Of course, gasoline is one of the dozens of resources being consumed at "there is no tomorrow" pace, but, at $4/gallon, it makes it a good topic to pick on.

I'm an economist and subscribe to Jevons. The compact fluorescent light bulb, the hybrid car, the hydrogen car, etc, is a hoax just postponing the inevitable. An improved technology will only make us consume more of it. The same best friend switched his 200-W driveway bulb for a CFLB, so, as he said, "I can leave it running all night."

The concept of conversation is so skewed, it makes me laugh.

Please stay in touch. Happy Memorial Day!