Joined: May 15, 2005 Posts: 4142 Location: THE MATRIX
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon anyone? 1-hour+ commutes rose by 50%, 1990-2000
Damn it agentR stop sounding so sensible and stop saying things that I agree with!!!
Yeah good stuff EB.
"Oh joy (insert technocon fix here).... we are saved!" _________________ It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
Understanding the sensitivity of gasoline demand to changes in prices and income has important implications for policies related to climate change, optimal taxation and national security, to name only a few. While the short-run price and income elasticities of gasoline demand in the United States have been studied extensively, the vast majority of these studies focus on consumer behavior in the 1970s and 1980s. There are a number of reasons to believe that current demand elasticities differ from these previous periods, as transportation analysts have hypothesized that behavioral and structural factors over the past several decades have changed the responsiveness of U.S. consumers to changes in gasoline prices. In this paper, we compare the price and income elasticities of gasoline demand in two periods of similarly high prices from 1975 to 1980 and 2001 to 2006. The short-run price elasticities differ considerably: and range from -0.034 to -0.077 during 2001 to 2006, versus -0.21 to -0.34 for 1975 to 1980. The estimated short-run income elasticities range from 0.21 to 0.75 and when estimated with the same models are not significantly different between the two periods.
In plain English, Americans aren't as sensitive to gas price changes as they were in the past. Put a better way, they are less likely to use less gas if the price goes up as they were in the past.
Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: Re: Jevon anyone? 1-hour+ commutes rose by 50%, 1990-2000
After decades of moving into suburbia, of relying on the car for just about everything, when gas prices go up, few choices remain beside biting the bullet and paying. _________________ "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Here is great piece from a poster over at the oildrum. He was responding to my criticism of Robert Rapiers take on conservation and Jevon's Pardox. Here is Rapier's piece
I agree. The "Jevon's Paradox" line was a throwaway. I've never seen it used as an excuse not to conserve...perhaps a rationale for those who wouldn't conserve in any case, but that's a different matter.
At the same time, the potential for savings from efficiency are highly overstated, but not from the strict sense of Jevon's paradox.
This is due to the fact that people don't save energy...they save money. Not a kW nor joule of any energy has ever gone into a person's pocket. What they see is dollars, euros or yuan.
There are three main offsets to efficiency.
First is the direct rebound effect. When you can have a light on for the cost of 13W (CFL) instead of 60W (incandescent), you might use it more...perhaps not turn it it off when you leave the room. Your monetary savings are somewhat reduced and kWh usage raised. We've seen this in a very big way with car efficiency gains, which have been more than offset by higher VMT. On the other hand, this has not been a factor with refrigerator efficiency gains of over 50% since 1983. Since they already run 24/7, there's no additional use possible (unless you want to leave the door open for some reason).
Second is the indirect rebound effect. This refers to the offset of your energy savings from efficiency by the use of the monetary savings for other consumption. Say you save $20/month on your electricity bill from your new efficient refrigerator, but spend this on Starbucks, or another tank of gas or a few books. Each of these items require energy that would not have otherwise been demanded, and offset your savings to various degrees. Further, your purchase is someone else's income, so there is the multiplier effect in action.
The third is the general equilibrium effect. This is most powerful. This refers to the economic impact of having your monetary savings recycled through our fractional reserve banking system. Say a factory has an audit and replaces a series of inefficient equipment with more efficient ones and saves $10,000/month in energy costs. This $10,000, as savings or a bank deposit, form the basis of up to $90,000 (on average) of new money (in the form of credit with interest obligations) in the larger economy. This, of course, requires some kind of growth in order to generate the profit to pay off the principal and interest. The additonal energy demanded for this new economic activity can swamp your savings.
Why don't we see this? Because the boundaries of energy efficiency measurements are drawn very narrowly. When US DOE does its savings estimates of new appliance standards, it draws the boundary around the single piece of equipment itself. Direct rebound effects are sometimes mentioned, but the indirect and general equilibrium effects are completely ignored. Do you ever wonder why, when you see all these claimed savings of TWhs or GJ why total energy consumption just keeps rising?
There's only a few ways to offset this. One would be to tax away the monetary gains from efficiency and sterilize the money. Second, and important in our context here, is that these effects don't accrue when efficiency is used to offset the rising price of energy. Personally, I have not saved a penny from installing an efficient gas water heater 2 years ago because gas prices have risen faster than the increase in efficiency, but I have foregone spending more. And third, the savings can be tapped away to recycle into natural capital formation (soil, air, water), but we simply don't have a mechanism to do this.
So don't completely dismiss the impacts of Jevon's Paradox in the broad sense because of its common misuse in the strict sense. Unless the monetary savings from energy conservation don't return to the economy, we are fooling ourselves to think that these measures can have a significant impact over the long term.
_________________ 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: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1561 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MQ and Aaron-
I thoroughly understand that local conservation efforts will not reduce overall energy consumption levels due to creating more supply and thereby making it cheaper. This in turn allows other communities to buy the cheaper supply, thus erasing any conservation efforts.
Thus, any solution in part fails to become a solution in whole.
But on the other hand...any lack of solution in whole does not mean there can not be a solution in part.
Communities devoted to needing less fossil fuel energy and to becoming minimally consumptive and sustainable (permaculture farming for example) will be best prepared for a low carbon future. Extracating oneself as much from the fossil fuel supply and demand cycle is a paramount post-peak survival strategy.
Will it make a difference in the long run? Perhaps not. Overconsumption and overshoot have led to factors out of our control (Global Warming) and may eventually cause a near extinction event.
But I question you two- what is the alternative? Keep on trucking, consume as much as you want, buy a couple Hummers, settle down in Houston (as Aaron suggests) and wait for your inevitable overshoot related death?
Even if we do all die, I'd prefer to do it in a way that sought balance and harmony instead of embracing the greed and rape culture that has brought us to the brink of doom.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
But I question you two- what is the alternative?
I have been explaining this from the start.
The monetary savings from energy conservation CANNOT return to the economy.
We must counter the paradox and stop the resultant increase in consumption by raising the price, through taxation, or by restricted per capita consumption.
Entails a complete overhaul of how we operate.
A paradigm shift in our thoughts about growth and quality of life.
A powerdown equitably shared by all.
And a population reduction.
Not likely, you say?
We know, that's why Aaron and I keep saying is all about how the monkeys react to peakoil.
And why we expect the worse. _________________ 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: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
But on the other hand...any lack of solution in whole does not mean there can not be a solution in part.
Peak oil is a global problem. _________________ 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: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1561 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MonteQuest wrote:
I have been explaining this from the start.
The monetary savings from energy conservation CANNOT return to the economy.
We must counter the paradox and stop the resultant increase in consumption by raising the price, through taxation, or by restricted per capita consumption.
Entails a complete overhaul of how we operate.
A paradigm shift in our thoughts about growth and quality of life.
A powerdown equitably shared by all.
Great- I am all for it MQ- all for taxation to reduce consumption. That is a smart concept that hopefully will be applied globally.
But you continue to exclude local responses and individual efforts for conservation. You use Jevon's paradox to justify your belief that local conservation is a waste of time. If you mean that local conservation will not solve the world's energy problems, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you mean to say that conservation has no personal or community based impact whatsoever, I entirely disagree.
Here are a number of reasons why you are completely wrong.
1- Individual conservation has an individual economic impact. Lowering the thermostat, driving less, growing your own food, etc., all means you don't need to earn as much money. That means you don't have to work as much, or you are better prepared for higher prices because you have lowered your consumption levels.
2- Local conservation in the form of towns and cities allows groups of people to plan for a different future of less fossil fuels. Urban density, protecting local arable land, buidling bike paths, tax breaks for mass transit, etc. , all allow the local populace to live with less need for fossil fuels. When prices skyrocket, communities that require less will fair better.
3- International efforts must occur in conjunction with local efforts. A tax on gas, while worthwhile, is simply one idea. Myriad local changes need to take place that cannot be legislated from a federal or international level. Every bioregion is different and will need different responses to the crisis.
4- The alternative is crazy. If you say conservation is a waste of time, then your logic essentially is telling people that they might as well be wasteful and excessively consumptive. Um, isn't that what got us in this mess? Please please please answer this point. If you don't I will find anything else you say disingenuous.
Like I said, I am no optimist. I thoroughly believe that a die-off of some proportions is likely. This leads me to the 5th reason why local and individual conservation efforts are smart.
5- Even if we all die trying, we will at least have made efforts towards bringing balance, towards living within our means.
MQ and Aaron, I agree with you guys on a lot of things but on this issue you are way off base.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:20 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
But you continue to exclude local responses and individual efforts for conservation. You use Jevon's paradox to justify your belief that local conservation is a waste of time.
I have never said it is a waste of time. I said we must counter the consequences or it is.
Quote:
If you mean to say that conservation has no personal or community based impact whatsoever, I entirely disagree.
I'v e never said that either. But what are we trying to solve?
The impact of peak oil? Or your personal issues?
Ever read Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons?
It's time you did.
Quote:
When prices skyrocket, communities that require less will fair better.
Communities that require less will have fewer jobs.
Quote:
If you say conservation is a waste of time, then your logic essentially is telling people that they might as well be wasteful and excessively consumptive. Um, isn't that what got us in this mess? Please please please answer this point. If you don't I will find anything else you say disingenuous.
I have never said anything of the sort. I have said we need to counter the consequences that increased efficiency and conservation efforts bring with them. No where, at any time, have I suggested we just consume on.
Asked and aswered ad naseum.
Quote:
MQ and Aaron, I agree with you guys on a lot of things but on this issue you are way off base.
I'm sorry you just can't get a grasp of the issue. _________________ 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: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
Individual conservation has an individual economic impact. Lowering the thermostat, driving less, growing your own food, etc., all means you don't need to earn as much money. That means you don't have to work as much, or you are better prepared for higher prices because you have lowered your consumption levels.
Sure does. If enough people do it, everyone will be out of a job. _________________ 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: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1561 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:33 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.
Put something on sale and people will buy more of it.
That's a fact.
MQ- I feel you are truly skating arouhnd the issue. At least Aaron is direct and honest. You may not state directly that conservation is a waste of time but you infer it with the above remark. You are inferring that conservation is not only a waste of time, but actually increases the problem.
If you believe conservation increases the problem...then logically one should not conserve. If one does not conserve then one consumes at today's levels or more.
You may not say this directly but you are inferring it MQ. Please be plain.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
MQ- I feel you are truly skating arouhnd the issue. At least Aaron is direct and honest. You may not state directly that conservation is a waste of time but you infer it with the above remark. You are inferring that conservation is not only a waste of time, but actually increases the problem.
If you believe conservation increases the problem...then logically one should not conserve. If one does not conserve then one consumes at today's levels or more.
You may not say this directly but you are inferring it MQ. Please be plain.
I never skate around anything. Yes, conservation actually increases the problem. Putting something on sale increases it's use.
We all know that.
I have been quite plain.
Montequest wrote:
I have said we need to counter the consequences that increased efficiency and conservation efforts bring with them.
_________________ 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.
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
