Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
You say we need to counter the consequences that increased efficiency and conservation brings with them.
How would you counter them?
Duh? Asked and answered. _________________ 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 4:18 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
Duh?
Yep, duh. (sigh)
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.
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.
Joined: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1531 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
You choose to insult me, but I'll avoid doing the same.
A powerdown shared by all. Paradigm changes. Globalized population reduction.
We are on the saame page MQ. I am all for that- even if it may be very difficult to impossible for it to happen. I will work towards that.
But you say that conservation will lead to worse consumtion levels that must be "countered." I assume by countering you mean global treaties, pacts, laws, etc. Are you saying that without this globalized management, localized effort will lead to further excessive consumption and therefore hopelessly destructive?
We have gone round and round and I will leave off here- but I have to say that individualized and community based approaches to mitigating upcoming events not only have validity, they are essential.
If by local effort you mean some glossed over "Green" strategy of a company like DuPont to dupe consumers, I agree. But if you mean true collective goals to reduce consumption levels...I will have to disagree.
I am sorry that this brought you to the level of having to insult me. I have clarified in my mind what I think and what you think. We happen to disagree.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
You choose to insult me, but I'll avoid doing the same.
You choose to insult yourself by asking me to answer that which I have been answering ad naseum for over two years on this site, and most recently to you just a few posts back!
Duh?
Quote:
But you say that conservation will lead to worse consumtion levels that must be "countered." I assume by countering you mean global treaties, pacts, laws, etc.
Asked and answered.
Quote:
We must counter the paradox and stop the resultant increase in consumption by raising the price, through taxation, or by restricted per capita consumption.
My god, man...do you just not read my posts back to you or what? _________________ 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: 1531 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MQ, since you've been critiqueing me, I'll say this to you. You have a very good grasp on what is going on, but I would suggest that you avoid insulting or demeaning people who disagree with you.
We simply have different ways of looking at things. I am not going to wait for international approaches to mandate consumption levels. I believe it is something that should happen from the bottom up, and perhaps in time, in conjunction with international mandates.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
MQ, since you've been critiqueing me, I'll say this to you. You have a very good grasp on what is going on, but I would suggest that you avoid insulting or demeaning people who disagree with you.
That you keep asking questions that I have already answered is not disagreeing with me, it is just flat annoying. I read your every word, at least return the courtesy.
I get quite tired of repeating myself.
Hence, asked and aswered ad naseum.
I spent two weeks reading everyone position before I ever posted my first post. As a result, that first post remained on the front page for over two years.
The Peakoil Perfect Storm.
I am working on an udate, so it shall return. After over 7000 posts, my patience is not what it used to be.
I recommend that people spend more time reading people's positions before taking them to task.
Save you getting your toes stepped on. _________________ 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 27, 2004 Posts: 12469 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Just curious, thuja, how you see a "mandate" working from "the bottom up." Do you mean, each individual or perhaps local communities will choose to limit consumption levels and then that ethic or value will "work up" to the national and international level? How do the individuals convince their neighbors and local community to limit consumption if "nobody else is doing it"? I see that as the main problem with the "bottom up" strategy. It requires all (or at least most) individuals to have a shared ethic, which we, as a society, manifestly do not have in regards to limiting consumption. Quite the opposite, one might say, we have a societal "ethic" which encourages the maximum consumption. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Joined: Oct 15, 2005 Posts: 1531 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
Thanks for understanding my position Ludi. Again, I am not a strong optimist and I have no conviction that localized efforts will do anything to stop the coming storm. But I do believe that localized efforts can have a significant impact at a local level. This is everything from individualized efforts of conservation to local city/county/state efforts.
First off, I don't think you need everybody to take part to have an immediate impact. In my discussion of my friend who gave up his car, he saw immediate economic benefits..no need for anyone else to agree with your point of view. The economic view is immediate.
On a local county or city level, if bike trails are built, mass transit is emphasized, local arable land is saved and urban density is promoted, there will be an immediate impact on your ability to cope with rising energy costs- again...not everyone has to agree. Someone can choose to drive a hummer and pay exhorbitant prices for gasoline while others can bike and take mass transit and save a bundle.
I could go on forever. The point is...this does not solve the problem of the post peak decline. But it does have an immediate impact on people's day to day lives.
I find it laughable the idea that Jevon's Paradox makes conservation worthless. Go tell that to the poor person biking groceries back from the food bank.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
I could go on forever. The point is...this does not solve the problem of the post peak decline. But it does have an immediate impact on people's day to day lives.
Sure does, as people conserve and powerdown, most of their jobs disappear. Don't you realize that consumption is what employs people? Your friend saw immediate benefits, but the people who depended upon his auto use saw immediate impact. From the car dealer to the gas station and all the other 1 out of 6 people in the community that make a living off auto use. They spend their money at other businesses that employ people that eventually hire you for your services. It is a domino effect. Just like when economic growth runs through a community. Everyone benefits. Conservation is just the reverse. Everyone suffers.
Are you going to be dependent upon your savings that will be spent outside your community to come back to employ you? You conserve, but those who don't keep you employed with their consumption fueled by your savings?
Conservation and capitlism are like oil and water, they do not mix.
Conservation is a self-induced recession. Recessions cause unemployment and business failures. You must counter these consequences.
You must rethink economics, growth, etc.
Conservation is just the same as cutting GDP, cutting sales, reducing production, etc.
Why do you not think a fire will flare if you throw gasoline on it?
Conservation and business are usual are quite impossible.
Quote:
I find it laughable the idea that Jevon's Paradox makes conservation worthless. Go tell that to the poor person biking groceries back from the food bank.
Jevon's Paradox doesn't say that. It says that increased efficiency leads to greater use of a resource.
Conservation leads to increased use by lowering the price.
If a community conserves, those outside it will consume the savings while those inside will see their jobs disappear as the consumption that employed them disappears.
We have to grow under our economic system or the house of cards falls.
Individuals can see immediate economic benefit until someone else within their community conserves what they make or do for a living.
I guess you didn't read the Tragedy of the Commons, did you?
I find it quite amazing that so many people are so ingrained with thinking that our economic system can be tweaked beyond recognition and not break.
As the House of Lords remarked when they looked at this:
Quote:
This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth.
This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible.
You somehow seem to assert that all past observed economic history regarding this is bunk. You can't seem to see beyond your own immediate rewards, forgetting that you are in a system.
Classic Tragedy of the Commons thinking.
It is what got us in this mess. _________________ 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: 1531 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MQ- you are talking in terms of macroeconomics and I am talking in terms of microeconomics.
You have to see that I don't disagree with you on a macroeconomic level. You are completely correct in stating that conservation in situ, at a local level, will have the effect of causing demand destruction leading to excessive supply, leading to cheaper fossil fuels. This in turn will promote other communities to take advantage of the lower prices to boost growth and consumption. I really really really get it MQ.
But you must see the picture from the flip side...when you state that conservation has unintended consequences I agree. But one must choose, mustn't one? Do you conserve or consume more? Do you really propose that we don't conserve? Do you really propose that we should keep current consumption levels? This is the microeconomic level.
Jevon's paradox has a great amount of validity on a macroeconomic level and should be taken into account in terms of international mitigation plans. But it is absolutely useless as a concept on a microeconomic level. Individual and community plans will generally favor saving money by using less energy, thus favoring efficiency and conservation. Do you truly propose that this is shortsighted and we should stop this course of action? Do you truly propose that we stop conserving and start consuming more?
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
thuja wrote:
Do you really propose that we don't conserve? Do you really propose that we should keep current consumption levels? Do you truly propose that we stop conserving and start consuming more?
No, and I never have. I am quite convinced that either you don't read what I write, do not read the supporting links, or are incapable of comprehending either.
Again, from the House of Lords link that you did not read.
Quote:
At this microeconomic level, for instance in the case of an individual household, savings that are made through, for instance, improved insulation, release money that will be spent on other goods. These will entail some energy consumption, creating a "rebound effect", but in practice the money that has been released, which was previously being spent essentially on either primary fuel (e.g. gas or oil) or on electricity, is unlikely to be spent on anything equally energy intensive.[30] Absolute reductions in energy consumption are thus possible at the microeconomic level.
However, this does not mean that an analogy can be made with macroeconomic effects. Apart from anything else, the substitution effects observable at the macroeconomic level cannot be replicated by households, where demand for a range of goods is relatively inelastic.
You as an indidvual are micro. In a community of conserving households, you are talking macro. _________________ 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 28, 2006 Posts: 150 Location: Southern California
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
I don't want to put words in MQ's mouth, but I believe he is saying that conserving alone won't stop us from slamming into the proverbial energy barrier at 100mph.
There need to be fundamental changes to the way our culture and our neighbors' cultures work.
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
grink1tt3n wrote:
There need to be fundamental changes to the way our culture and our neighbors' cultures work.
Quite so. We can't continue doing what we do, but just less so.
I thnk I have boiled the ocean enough on this. If you don't get it by now, you never will. _________________ 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: 1531 Location: Portland, Oregon
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Re: Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation
MonteQuest wrote:
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.
Monte- you and Aaron both stated that conservation is a bad idea.
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
