Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
DigitalCubano wrote:
Aaron wrote:
I don't edit posts.
And you sir appear to be trolling.
Aaron, please accept my apology for the accusation. I assumed that you had been responsible given how "chippy" our retorts had been these past couple of days. I am certainly not trolling the forum, thread or any individual. Rest assured that I am only interested in honest debate.
However, in the spirit of promoting honest debate I would like to be "on record" as asking for some kind of investigation into whom was responsible for editing my original post and inserting the quote in question. I feel that such an abuse of privilege should not be abided and undermines the stated intent of these forums.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Fair enough & noted.
I sent you a PM.
And no worries... I don't think less of you for being wrong.
And I hope you feel the same way. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
JoeW wrote:
Despite various arguments, I am still not convinced that Jevon's Paradox creates any provocative argument for avoiding conservation. Perhaps someone can tell me in just two or three sentences why conservation is wrong.
No one is saying conservation is wrong, but that it has unforseen consequences that must be factored in. Conservation works if everyone does it and the pain (loss of economic activity) is shared. If not, your conservation is someone else's increased consumption or the loss of jobs in porportion to the loss in sales of the commodity conserved.
Some say, well, then they get a new job in renewable energies.
Ok, then where is the conservation?
You just shifted it's consumption from one area to another.
But it is a better area, you say?
So? Where is the net conservation?
Doesn't supply and demand govern price?
Products sales go up when the price drops, right?
If there is no excess production to be had, then you are up against a new issue. But conservation will lower the price relative to what it would have been, regardless of availability. In effect, it would prevent any swing capacity from occuring. The lower price would suck it up as fast as it became available.
Conservation only works when it doesn't lower the relative price or make that conserved energy available to those who would consume it and not conserve it.
We might conserve, but China might not. They might use our conservation gains to increase their consumption. _________________ 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: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:42 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
Ok, let's say the US invokes massive efficiency gains and conservation. How will you instill this notion on the Chinese and Indians who are hell-bent set for achieving what we already have?
That's over 2 billion people ther alone. In the infamous words of Ross Perot, you will hear a "sucking sound" from the east.
Lol, Monte : Ross Perot .. here is a blast from the past
In the short term, Monte's point is extremely relevant.
But I'm not so sure about the long term. As the hydrocarbon supply dries up, the people/systems/countries who decided to conserve/re-organise/powerswitch in spite of the JP will fair better than the people who decided to consume when others conserved. I cannot phrase it in differential terms (was never good with formal economics/finance) but it would seem that if the degree of JP related consumption is equal to the rate of conservation/powerswitch then the situation becomes very interesting:
1) the "expiration date" of the resource under question is not pushed back in the future
2) The conservationists will be "home free" or at least less vulnerable to the effects of the expiration date, when that day comes
3) The "consumerists" (let's give them a "cultish" tag for fun), will find themselves more vulnerable to the effects of depletion when that day comes.
Notwithstanding the fact that ethics makes JP irrelevant, it would appear that people/communities with a long term view/vision should not use JP as an excuse to postpone action.
My 2c _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Last edited by EnergySpin on Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:03 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
If there is no excess production to be had, then you are up against a new issue.
Exactly. If we're talking oil, it's called "peak oil". So why are you insisting on going on about Jevon's paradox when you know perfectly well that it doesn't apply to peak oil?
MonteQuest wrote:
We might conserve, but China might not. They might use our conservation gains to increase their consumption.
Oil prices are pretty much the same worldwide, aren't they? So why would China find it easier not to conserve than us? In fact, it's rich countries the ones that should find easier not to conserve.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:28 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Doly wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
If there is no excess production to be had, then you are up against a new issue.
Exactly. If we're talking oil, it's called "peak oil". So why are you insisting on going on about Jevon's paradox when you know perfectly well that it doesn't apply to peak oil?
MonteQuest wrote:
We might conserve, but China might not. They might use our conservation gains to increase their consumption.
Oil prices are pretty much the same worldwide, aren't they? So why would China find it easier not to conserve than us? In fact, it's rich countries the ones that should find easier not to conserve.
RELATIVE - Not independent. Compared with or with respect to some other measured quantity.
Geez folks...
We are simply saying that C & E won't act to delay PO.
Not unless we can FORCE all consumers to comply.
Fine - If we can't produce more oil then Jevon is irrelevant.
NOT THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!! <grrrrr> _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:05 am Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
We might conserve, but China might not. They might use our conservation gains to increase their consumption.
Yes it is true that conservation of fuel does not guarantee the wise use of "saved" energy. So far I decreased my gasoline consumption roughly by 1,000 gallons by eliminating my driving. By me doing that I am not putting pressure on the price of the stuff, which is making it cheaper for someone else to burn in their retarded wasteful driving. The only way for me to really make sure that my conservation does not feedback into the consumption of others would be for me to purchase that 1,000 gallons and store it in some underground tank somewhere (hey that's not a bad idea ).
But what is lost in this view of Jevon's paradox is the main point of taking measures to conserve. It was mentioned earlier that a penny saved is a penny earned and fuel saved is fuel earned. I think it should be more precisely described as energy saved as energy that does not have to be earned. So yes my 1,000 gallons of gasoline that I "conserved" isn't valuable because it will be there to be used more wisely later. This conservation is important because there is 1,000 gallons of gasoline that does not have to be made available in the future. The purpose of demand reduction should be about the capacity to run an economy when energy cannot be saved or conserved. That, by the way, takes cultural change and investment into new or transformed systems.
As a nation we need to reduce the 22 mbd in order to have a society that is not dependent on using huge energy stocks. We are going to do that regardless. But if we act to reduce our own demand we can control this transformation. That is why we need to conserve.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
dub_scratch wrote:
But what is lost in this view of Jevon's paradox is the main point of taking measures to conserve. It was mentioned earlier that a penny saved is a penny earned and fuel saved is fuel earned. I think it should be more precisely described as energy saved as energy that does not have to be earned. So yes my 1,000 gallons of gasoline that I "conserved" isn't valuable because it will be there to be used more wisely later. This conservation is important because there is 1,000 gallons of gasoline that does not have to be made available in the future.
Will your conservation make gasoline cheaper because there is more supply?
Of course. Supply/demand determines price.
Does a lowering of price increase consumption?
Of course.
So where is the net gain from your conservation?
Your conservation efforts made even more gasoline have to be produced.
The point that I keep making is the gains from conservation cannot be allowed to lower the market price or it will increase the consumption of the commodity, as it is subject to the laws of supply/demand.
And as long as some consume what some conserve, conservation will do little to affect the big picture.
Conservation and capitalism are like oil and water; they do not mix.
If we are to conserve, we cannot allow the gains to be made available to consumers through lower prices.
Conserve and raise the price to prevent increased consumption. _________________ 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: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
dub_scratch wrote:
But what is lost in this view of Jevon's paradox is the main point of taking measures to conserve. It was mentioned earlier that a penny saved is a penny earned and fuel saved is fuel earned. I think it should be more precisely described as energy saved as energy that does not have to be earned. So yes my 1,000 gallons of gasoline that I "conserved" isn't valuable because it will be there to be used more wisely later. This conservation is important because there is 1,000 gallons of gasoline that does not have to be made available in the future.
Will your conservation make gasoline cheaper because there is more supply?
Of course. Supply/demand determines price.
Does a lowering of price increase consumption?
Of course.
So where is the net gain from your conservation?
Your conservation efforts made even more gasoline have to be produced.
The point that I keep making is the gains from conservation cannot be allowed to lower the market price or it will increase the consumption of the commodity, as it is subject to the laws of supply/demand.
And as long as some consume what some conserve, conservation will do little to affect the big picture.
Conservation and capitalism are like oil and water; they do not mix.
If we are to conserve, we cannot allow the gains to be made available to consumers through lower prices.
Conserve and raise the price to prevent increased consumption.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Daryl wrote:
Gas tax negates Jevon's Paradox.
Depends on what the tax is used for, and if it offsets the lower price as a result of the conservation. _________________ 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: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Daryl wrote:
Gas tax negates Jevon's Paradox.
Gas tax does not negate Jevon's Paradox if that revenue is used to pay for the expansion of already underpriced road use or driving. The first priority of gas tax proponents, who aim to decrease consumption, should be the diversion of the funds away from the national highway project. They should also try to ban the municipal parking requirements while they are at it. Until we stop feeding the beast with these policies, we should expect that these conservation efforts will be devoured by the beast.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
dub_scratch wrote:
Daryl wrote:
Gas tax negates Jevon's Paradox.
Gas tax does not negate Jevon's Paradox if that revenue is used to pay for the expansion of already underpriced road use or driving. The first priority of gas tax proponents, who aim to decrease consumption, should be the diversion of the funds away from the national highway project. They should also try to ban the municipal parking requirements while they are at it. Until we stop feeding the beast with these policies, we should expect that these conservation efforts will be devoured by the beast.
Agreed. In fact, according to Jevon's theory, it should not be used to create any new consumption, which will ultimately may create more energy use than is saved. The first gas tax will probably not save much gas, because it can only realisitically fly in these times if it is revenue neutral ie offset by a reduction in personal income taxes. However, it will have benefits nonetheless. More expensive fuel will start to shrink the car sizes down, let Detroit start to make it's adjustments, give momentum to mass transit and modern urban planning (your area), give momentum to alternatives, exploration and renewables. This is why Jevon's paradox is only a clever way to point out that turning down your thermostat in isolation doesn't help much in an energy crisis. Saves you money though, so Jevon's Paradox really doesn't have much use or meaning.
Once the crisis becomes more apparent to the public and they are frightened into submission, the gas tax can be directed to renewables, mass transit, rail transport and also (please be gentle) nuclear.
Joined: Dec 16, 2004 Posts: 706 Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
MonteQuest wrote:
Conserve and raise the price to prevent increased consumption.
Oil consumption is global so our curtailment will lower the price for Europe & China. We cannot possibility expect we can prevent increased consumption there or anywhere else in the world.
The point of conservation should be to reduce oil dependency. That objective has an immediate and very controllable aspect to it. I reduced my yearly motor fuel consumption from about 500 ga to next to nothing. My fuel-less transportation is not at all dependant on what my neighbors or what Europe & Asia do. I am not affected by fuel price increases or shortage in my transportation (OK, OK. I know full well that my other economic needs are dependent on motor fuels, so please don’t lash out on me about that).
I think we need a new term for what we call 'conservation'. Perhaps we should call it reduced resource dependency. That does not exactly roll off the tongue like the term 'conservation', but it does describe a more clear objective.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Jevon's doesn't work past peak oil, because if you don't use it in a shrinking energy world nobody else will either. Jevon invented his paradox in England with expanding energy supplies. All we can do now is maintain a certain lifestyle, through conservation and efficiency. Any extra money we have will be scooped up by higher prices. The total amount of oil and gas coming down the pipe is down. Everybody is fighting over a dwindling resource. Why fight for it? Make your own energy. Then you will only need some of what's coming down the pipe. Even if you get less you won't have to fight everyone else for the oil.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 482 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon's Paradox Explained
Revi wrote:
Jevon's doesn't work past peak oil, because if you don't use it in a shrinking energy world nobody else will either. Jevon invented his paradox in England with expanding energy supplies. All we can do now is maintain a certain lifestyle, through conservation and efficiency. Any extra money we have will be scooped up by higher prices. The total amount of oil and gas coming down the pipe is down. Everybody is fighting over a dwindling resource. Why fight for it? Make your own energy. Then you will only need some of what's coming down the pipe. Even if you get less you won't have to fight everyone else for the oil.
I agree with Revi. I don't think Jevons' paradox has been proved in an environment of declining resources.
Revi wrote:
Everybody is fighting over a dwindling resource. Why fight for it? Make your own energy.
Are you off-grid Revi? Do you make all of your own energy, or just some?
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
