THE Jevons Paradox Thread (merged)

Tanada

It would be nice if our library would stock it, but as a foreign title with an expensive cover price that is not a high probabillity. If you buy it and then put it on Abebooks.com or halfprice.com or some such after you read it I might get to purchase it for a discount (hint hint) Wink

_________________
Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov

MonteQuest

As we learned from this thread, Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation Jevons Paradox is not an argument against conservation or efficiency gains, it is a wakeup call to the reality of the expected results.

The unexpected results being that all observed efficiency gains to date have led to increased consumption.

How do we counter this?

Taxes lead to greater efficiency.

So does rationing.

How does one avoid the "rebound effect"?

Seems that all gains must be directed at reducing efficiency????? LOL!

So, what is left?

Taking all gains out of the market and using them to transition to a sustainable system, irrespective of economics?

Think this one through before you respond.
_________________
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.

MacG · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 1178

Shooting from the hip here: Look at the examples. We have some resource stripped areas of this world where Jevon's Paradox have run rampant for at leat some fivehundred years. Just look at the Arab world and the 'stans. Add China and India prior to 1980. More and more people crammed tighter and tighter. They found ways to cope. Not very nice. But they seem to have preferred 'not very nice' over 'death'. Life seem to be a precious thing, and most people seem to sacrifice just about everything to stay in Life. I don't object - apply to me too.

thuja

Monte- is this a trick question? It is seemingly impossible to offset the Paradox in a "free market". Truly- only global ratification of binding international agreements to simultaneously reduce consumption levels is the only way one could overcome the Paradox and truly "powerdown". All other efforts- in situ- will likely lead to greater consumption levels...is this what you are driving at?

Madpaddy · Expert Joined: Jun 25, 2004 Posts: 2087

Thuja,

I think you have it bang on.

We are entering the era of declining overall available energy.

Therefore the only increases in productivity must be through more efficient use of energy.

Any increased productivity must be channelled into sustainable development.

This can only be done with binding international agreements.
_________________
www.askaboutenergy.com

aflurry · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 28, 2005 Posts: 826

MonteQuest

MonteQuest

Ludi

It seems to me the answer is what the Puritans won't want to hear - we need an incredibly lazy, inefficient way of life, in which we produce virtually nothing beyond our needs for survival, and produce those in a way which doesn't require much, if any, non-living (human, animal, or plant) energy. This is so counter to our society, our culture, our historical values, as to be anathema to many, possibly most, people.
_________________
No original ideas are contained in this post.

MonteQuest

DavidFolks

MonteQuest

EnergyUnlimited · Fusion Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3123

I had red all posts above.
My overall impression is that Jevon's paradox will be around, as long as we have free market economy and population growth.
Perhaps in environment of die off (natural population decline) we may temporary "suspend" its effects, as peoples will have some more important things to worry about, than mindless consuming of more and more.
Once die off is over Jevon's paradox will kick in again as long as market economy is still around...
In any case it is rather default situation.

Some possible solution would be in relentless increasing of taxes on natural resources in a kind of "elevator" scheme run ab infinitum, regardless of consequences to economy and well being of individuals. Such undertaking would have to be run worldwide.
Any state income from such taxation would be spend to facilitate transition to sustainable way of life, not to improve healthcare, education etc.
I would find it difficult to call such a setup "free market".

Again, actual chance of introducing such a scheme in existing civilization is next to nil.
So we are sentenced to follow Jevon's route in our relentless race to the bottom.

It is interesting observation that sustainable life is deeply against "man's hubris".
That is why all civilizations built by man are invariably collapsing. This one will not be an exception.
There is no realistic way out.

IslandCrow

In a free market economy, the only way to offset Jevon's Paradox (and I realise that this will only be a very, very _small offset) is to control how I use any benefits from conservation and efficiency that I receive. How I spend my money (or don't spend it) is one signal that I can give to the market.

Jevon's Paradox seems to work in well functioning markets, where if I do not buy someone else will. This also works well for items that are easily transported from one place to another. I don't have any academic papers to support this, but I suspect that the Paradox works less well in small populations where maybe surplus production can not be easily used, or where the system breaks down (eg crops rotting in the fields because not enough cheap labour is available locally to pick them). So in this I have a gut feeling that the best way to work on offsetting Jevon's Paradox is to support the process of re-localization.
_________________
We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.

Byron100

In the face of forever declining oil, isn't this whole Jervon's Paradox a moot point? Sure, we can conserve all we want, but one thing remains the same...there is less to go around, period.

I think the real question is whether we limit total consumption via market pricing (rich countries outbidding the poor ones, and within the rich nations, the rich people outbidding the poor ones) -or- institute a comprehensive rationing system that matches the rate of decrease of fossil fuel production. But the chances of something like this being enacted without a world government in place is probably tougher than trying to win the Mega Millions lottery. One country decides to conserve by rationing, another will surely take advantage of having that little bit more to use for their economic advantage. So market pricing it will be until we run short enough to actually bring down the global economy :/

Another point to consider is how to move society away from hydrocarbons for good...a total paradigm change if there ever was one. But this will not happen until we're deep into decline, as people in general aren't going to get off their duff with this until its affecting them directly. And we all know this isn't going to be a pretty picture...