Jevon's Paradox is often cited to reduce the effectiveness of conservation. The explanation is that in our modern economy, saving energy makes people save money, which they either spend or invest. Spending the money will use energy, by purchasing more products or driving more what have you. Investing or saving the money leads to more consumption as well. This is certainly the case in a world of increasing energy abundance. However, in a world of decreasing energy availability or rapidly increasing energy demand, I think we need to question the assumption.

My biggest complaint on this board is that Jevon's Paradox has become the bible of Peak Oil theorists. Whenever conservation measures are mentioned as a stopgap, all debate is ended with just the mention of Jevon's. I don't think this is productive, and in fact may be harmful to productive debate. Although I do believe that we humans will burn every last drop of fossil fuels we can extract, I think that conservation will play an important role in the transition to a viable (no dramatic die off) post peak oil economy.

In a world of decreasing energy availability or rapidly increasing energy demand (both of which we are seeing right now), raises in the energy price necessitate conservation. Because price per unit of energy is constantly rising, any money saved through conservation will be used to less units of more expensive energy rather than being spent on increased consumption. Conservation in this case can be used to keep the economy going at steady state, or perhaps even slightly growing, while using less energy. It will definitely not buy us infinite time; however, it can certainly ease the transition.

I'd like to mention that the ultimate form of conservation is refraining from reproduction, as your children and children's children will likely use more energy than you could possibly save in a lifetime.

You introduce your critique with a critical misrepresentation, implying that Jevon's is cited "to reduce the effectiveness of conservation." Not so, rather it is cited to model past behavior and predict future behavior. I don't believe anyone who cares about petroleum decline is interested in reducing conservation. I understand petroleum decline yet I still save energy as best I can.

How can the truth of energy waste be counterproductive? History supports the flagrant overuse by other wasteful people of energy conserved by the conscientious. But then you believe it will happen. Your issue apparently is with the transition to a viable utopian society.

I believe you have it backward. You are confusing conservation with demand destruction. Energy scarcity and high prices are now causing people to use less energy. Conservation is self-imposed energy restraint that occurs during energy-rich periods.

Once again you confuse and conflate economic decline with intentional self-imposed restraint. There is no suggestion that our current energy is a consequence of intent. Conservation will cure our happy motoring psychosis.

Not if you hire them out as energy slaves to our Lords Jack and Aaron The kids can ride their stationary electric bike generators and the teens can sell off their sexual energy to power the oldster's electric walkers.

Man's a party animal. That isn't going to change.

I promise you that myself and others will consume any conservation or efficiency savings you achieve via the lower energy prices your efforts produce.

Relative to what I would have consumed absent your conservation efforts of course.

Shrinking supplies?

Fine

So it's less than during an energy glut.

So what?

By whatever degree you succeed in conservation, you will lower the price I will pay for my energy.

Gobbling up your savings with my increased relative usage.

Thus, making voluntary conservation pointless.

Aaron is wrong...as he was wrong in our lengthy daitribe back in the day -


Conservation on a personal level is most certainly good and smart on a number of levels...

A) The opposite is ludicrous....since you shouldn't conserve then the right thing to do is to buy a bunch of SUVs and McMansions...

B) Conservation helps to divert your cash flow into efforts to streamline and prepare the time of "involuntary conservation"

C) The more "conservative your community can be, the more it can use extra monies to build non-energy intensive infrastructure.

Will conservation stop peak oil? No...every bit will be used up...but will it help your family and community better prepare for the times ahead? Heck yeah...And

Its the right thing to do. Arguing the opposite (Yay profligate waste!) is simply silly...

Everyone is right, but not exactly.

As thuja voluntarily conserves oil, driving down oil prices, it is true that Aaron will tend to consume more than he otherwise would. But he would still be doing so at a lower price than if thuja had not conserved.

This filters back: oil sellers see lower prices for their product and marginal investments today (investment rational at $79.96 oil but not at $79.64 oil). This will result in lower future production and therefore higher prices than would otherwise exist if this entire chain of events had not been initiated.

Therefore, thuja conserving today would reduce oil production in the future. If that is his goal, then he will suceed, it just may be undetectable.

I have been called much worse than silly.

What's really silly is talking about becoming a better, more efficient consumer as if that was a noble, self less gesture.

Sure conservation means you save money... And so will I.

But it won't save 1 tiny bit energy.

Conservation may well be a useful survival skill on a personal level, but it won't impact global energy consumption.

Which is, of course, the whole point.

Aaron is right, only prices will force efficiency, check Europe, to reduce energy waste you need to start on national levels with promotion of trains, buses etc.. not on a personal level- it goes nowhere,

"Man's a party animal" is a classic, a lot said and explained in a short sentence

Of course, as Heinberg wrote, the party's over.

Aaron doesn't even believe in it on a national level- as it would simply stimulate other nations to take advantage of lowered prices.

No the question is not about whether conservation will stop Peak and Decline Oil from happening- that will happen no matter what...

Again- just to make clear- conserving will not let us use less oil. That aspect of Jevon's paradox is correct.

But...to take the next step...which Aaron does...and say...and therefore "voluntary conservation is pointless" is simply....

silly.

Again- conservation prior to geologically mandated conservation helps families and communities to prepare by shifting to alternative modes of managing life without oil.

And again...the reverse...profligate consumption...is clearly ridiculous. Sorry...

The only way we could really "conserve" is if all nations voluntarily agreed to use less oil than is being produced and then agreeing not to use remaining reserves. The likelihood of that happening is....zero.

That means we will use what is left...thats ok by me because geologically mandated decline rates will be occuring within a few years.

Those decline rates are better than any mandates a global governmental body would suggest.....2-4 % a year until its gone...

Because we will be achieving those nice decline rates in short order, best to get a jump on things and start conserving now- put that extra cash into efficiency, passive solar heating and lighting, garden tools, etc...

Yes conservation matters and is simply and obviously not...."pointless".

Unfortunately economies either grow or shrink ... they never simply stay at the same level.

If money is not spent then the part of the economy that depends on that spending will wither ... which in turn effects other parts of the economy.

The entire financial system is dependant on continual growth. Growth means consumerism and consumerism means more energy.

I really can't think of a alternative, low energy model for an economic system that will allow for continual growth or even stay at a steady state.

I have to agree with Thuja.
If you are conserving for the sole purpose of learning to live without it, for when it does run out. Then conservation has served it's purpose in the teaching.
If your conserving for the sole purpose of trying to make it go a little further,last a little longer. Then your efforts are about as useful as goose shit on a pump handle.

I'm not about to let your lack of imagination destroy my hopes. Instead of "low energy", let's think "smart energy". For starters, millions of people in the US driving 20+ miles to work each day is not smart. Telecommuting (working where you live) and living where you work are the key.

To address the other point... for every part of the economy affected adversely, another economic opportunity emerges. If people don't travel as much (for example), how will they spend their vacations? There is an opportunity there. Just like if people aren't buying as many large vehicles as they were, maybe there is an opportunity to sell smaller ones, bicycles, scooters, motorcycles, whatever.

I understand that the market for incandescent light bulbs will be completely destroyed due to their prohibition in 2014. Oh no! It's going to be a recession because the people making light bulbs won't buy cars and the people making cars then can't buy houses and the people building houses can't buy light bulbs!!!!!

Let us all prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and be smart. This is peakoil.com and people who discover the truth are going to find this site and read what we have been saying all this time. Must we give them a "we're all fucked"message over and over again?

Not true. If you cashed your paycheck every month and burned it society would not be made worse off because your loss is everyone elses gain. You are made directly worse off because by burning your money you are unable to consume the goods and services being produced in the economy. However, those goods and services still were produced, all that changed what the quantity of money, which means all prices in the economy will fall slightly so that all the purchasing power you lost was regained collectively by everyone else.

The first poster (as pointed out by esteemed others) is mistaken...

"The explanation is that in our modern economy, saving energy makes people save money, which they either spend or invest...Spending the money will use energy"

This is not Jevon's "paradox" at all...

For example one could spend a huge amount on SOLAR CELLS and a battery bank to run the homestead...and thus USE LESS energy...

Money is not energy Per say...most people use it to by things that take energy to make...but that is not what it is... (Petro-dollar analogy excluded).

If you want to conserve energy, then do it for the sake of saving a few dollars...why not?

But every scrap of energy you save with a Mercury emitting compact florescent bulb...is in turn used by countries like CHINA to make goods for the whole world...

Just look at how the USA, when we ran out short of Petroleum, shifted manufacture to CHINA (etc.) to make up for the increased cost(s) by decreasing labor costs and environmental regulations...

(Filthy someone else's backyard, and pay in paper for labor and human suffering.....He He ... the gig was good for a while...let's be honest.)