Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MonteQuest wrote:
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.
I have obsereved you to argue many times, (correctly so I think), that it was this cheap, available energy which made those population increases possible in the first place. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
TWilliam wrote:
Hypothesis? 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.
I agree with everything said in this quote (see above) but I wouldn't call it buying time. It's the long term solution. In a world of several billion people, we are always going to use all the energy we can afford. The Global community is never going to collectively and voluntarily decided to power down. But supply and price will force it. Some of us believe we'll be seeing a population crash and all sorts of unpleasant stuff. The more efficient we are at using energy, the less unpleasant stuff there needs to be. And after the crash, when population and living conditions stabilize at some reduced level, the more efficient we are, the better we'll be able to live. That's not buying time. That's the entire future of the human race, so far as I can see. _________________ Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Pixie wrote:
TWilliam wrote:
Hypothesis? 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.
I agree with everything said in this quote (see above) but I wouldn't call it buying time. It's the long term solution. In a world of several billion people, we are always going to use all the energy we can afford. The Global community is never going to collectively and voluntarily decided to power down. But supply and price will force it. Some of us believe we'll be seeing a population crash and all sorts of unpleasant stuff. The more efficient we are at using energy, the less unpleasant stuff there needs to be. And after the crash, when population and living conditions stabilize at some reduced level, the more efficient we are, the better we'll be able to live. That's not buying time. That's the entire future of the human race, so far as I can see.
...the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles." ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 16 _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
"I agree with everything said in this quote (see above) but I wouldn't call it buying time. It's the long term solution. In a world of several billion people, we are always going to use all the energy we can afford. The Global community is never going to collectively and voluntarily decided to power down. But supply and price will force it. Some of us believe we'll be seeing a population crash and all sorts of unpleasant stuff. The more efficient we are at using energy, the less unpleasant stuff there needs to be. And after the crash, when population and living conditions stabilize at some reduced level, the more efficient we are, the better we'll be able to live. That's not buying time. That's the entire future of the human race, so far as I can see." Pixie
I agree completely, but I think it buys us time now. In this economy. Check out what we have done in our household below under:
We each just took three long hot showers from the hot water provided by the sun today. If we didn't have solar hot water our teenager's half hour showers would have cost us big money! Our smaller cars are keeping us moving around while others around us have lost their mobility. The woodstove has enabled us to keep our house at a reasonable temperature while others are chilly. My electric bike has enabled me to commute to work, and do errands practically for free. This stuff all works now. What's the problem? It has helped us out financially and it's fun! We are probably using around half the fossil fuels we used five years ago. Which is good, because they all cost twice as much!
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Aaron wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
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.
I have obsereved you to argue many times, (correctly so I think), that it was this cheap, available energy which made those population increases possible in the first place.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. Just saying preemptively to arguments that this growth in consumption was a result of population growth alone are not in evidence. _________________ 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: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Revi wrote:
We each just took three long hot showers from the hot water provided by the sun today. If we didn't have solar hot water our teenager's half hour showers would have cost us big money! Our smaller cars are keeping us moving around while others around us have lost their mobility. The woodstove has enabled us to keep our house at a reasonable temperature while others are chilly. My electric bike has enabled me to commute to work, and do errands practically for free. This stuff all works now. What's the problem? It has helped us out financially and it's fun! We are probably using around half the fossil fuels we used five years ago. Which is good, because they all cost twice as much!
For you...
But your reduced consumption has just lowered the price and made energy available for others who choose not to conserve.
This isn't about "me", this is about "us." Everywhere. _________________ 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 Sep 13, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Conservation and efficiency alone will not alleviate energy problems and global warming. But despite enabling those not conserving energy to use more, it is the right thing to do. The US has 8% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy. If the US as a whole conserves and that leaves energy available for poor countries that is a good. If conservation becomes a norm and the cultural ethic changes, economic behavior may change.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
rdberg1957 wrote:
Conservation and efficiency alone will not alleviate energy problems and global warming. But despite enabling those not conserving energy to use more, it is the right thing to do. The US has 8% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy. If the US as a whole conserves and that leaves energy available for poor countries that is a good. If conservation becomes a norm and the cultural ethic changes, economic behavior may change.
Welcome to the board... hope you brought a helmet.
_________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
TWilliam wrote:
Sorry DC but apparently your understanding of what's being said is flawed.
What irony. Ah, like so:
TWilliam wrote:
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.
Perhaps. But if you actually spent some time trying to understand what I wrote before you authored this knee-jerk post, then you would be more careful not to lump me into said group. Certainly, you would have avoided the dog & pony show comprised of harping on the definition of a hypothesis (BTW, I want those 30 seconds of my life back, thanks).
The hypothesis to which I refer is that conservation/increased efficiency are useless in the face of the Peak Oil pickle. Certain people base this hypothesis partly on intuition derived from JP (Jevon's Paradox). So far, I dig. Where I start having problems is when certain people point to the VMT trend as proof positive that JP was the primary dynamic and that it goes on to prove said hypothesis. No, it doesn't. There are other dynamics in the VMT case that are being ignored, I suspect on purpose to buttress said hypothesis. As it stands, I see correlation, not causation. IOW, nothing that can be used in the validation of the hypothesis.
TWilliam wrote:
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.
Please re-read my numerous posts. You are missing the point I've been making by quite a margin...
TWilliam wrote:
I really don't think that anyone here believes that conservation is a bad idea.
You obviously haven't spent much time around these forums. Oh yes, my friend: there are folks on here who think conservation is a bad idea in that it will make the inevitable overshoot & collapse even worse.
TWilliam wrote:
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.
Such broad generalizations! If that were so, wouldn't we be arguing about Jevon's Law? We aren't. Because it isn't the repeatable, readily observable phenomenon that the armchair scientists on here would have you believe. The VMT case is a perfect example...one that I have argued over and over on these forums. Of course, the fatalism of JP fits so neatly into the PO meme that its irresistable to many.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Quote:
You obviously haven't spent much time around these forums. Oh yes, my friend: there are folks on here who think conservation is a bad idea in that it will make the inevitable overshoot & collapse even worse.
I am one such...
Absent some mitigating factor, all mankind has received thus far from better technology & conservation efforts is greater energy use.
It's fair to observe this is not causitive. But it's also a fairly strong correlation I think.
Either way though, nobody can deny the exponential increases in energy consumption for over 150 years +. So at the other end of this argument we conjecture that energy use increased despite technology & conservation activities.
Not because of it.
Without looking at some of Jevon's extended deductions based on JP, it's pretty intuitive to posit that prople tend to consume what they can afford.
Not sure about your VMT argument... do tell. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Aaron wrote:
Quote:
You obviously haven't spent much time around these forums. Oh yes, my friend: there are folks on here who think conservation is a bad idea in that it will make the inevitable overshoot & collapse even worse.
I am one such....
And I, another.
If you are living beyond your means, deep in debt, with declining wages, do you take out another loan to perpetuate your financial irresponsibility and reckless consumption?
Some do.
Stand by for bankruptcy.
Of course, we could scrap our economic system and toss the free market supply/demand mechanism.
But baring that, unless you find a way to prevent conservation and efficiency from putting things on sale, consumption will increase.
Price rises, taxes, rationing/restricted per capita consumption comes to mind. _________________ 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: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: Jevon anyone? 1-hour+ commutes rose by 50%, 1990-2000
Quote:
Commuters Facing Longer, Lonelier Rides
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More and more commuters are leaving home earlier, traveling farther and driving alone, says an analysis of commuting trends reported Monday.
The "Commuting in America" study by the Transportation Research Board also found that more commuters are traveling from suburb to suburb - rather than the traditional commute from suburb to city.
...
According to the latest analysis, the number of new solo drivers grew by almost 13 million from 1990 to 2000. The number of workers with commutes lasting more than 60 minutes grew by almost 50 percent over that period. And, compared with the previous decade, more Americans are leaving for work between 5 a.m. and 6:30 a.m.
[link to article] _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
Joined: Oct 06, 2006 Posts: 1196 Location: was rwwff
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon anyone? 1-hour+ commutes rose by 50%, 1990-2000
In the 1990-2000 time frame we were just entering the housing bubble and the drive till you qualify phenomenon, and all with very cheap gas.
OTOH, today I watched a news story on TV (rare) that indicated people were starting to return their eyes to the lure of SUV's just because of this current brief drop in price.
This indicates to me that $3 a gallon is no where near high enough to interfere with people's preferences about commuting. _________________ Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon anyone? 1-hour+ commutes rose by 50%, 1990-2000
Frankly, I was surprised that this study didn't include any data more recent than raw census data gathered over six years ago. As you said, given that the real estate boom didn't really "take off" until after the dot-com bust circa 2001, these figures could easily have doubled since then. The reaction towards $2+ gas is probably little more than a blurp on the graph of increasing commute times. _________________ "It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
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
