People have to put the Jevon's paradox in context for different conservation strategies. There is a big difference in conservation by means of curtailment of energy services and conservation by means of incremental improvements in energy services (aka machinery).

If oil started declining tomorrow and we respond by ending economic & population growth, eliminate long distance trucking and ending car driving, the overall reduction in the dependency on energy services would give the smooth transition post oil scenario that you cite. The remaining fossil fuels could be used for retooling civilization away from long term unsustainable systems.

Conversely, if all conservation strategies were made through efficiency, then the Jevon's paradox will rule and the end of oil would be chaotic. Efficiency can be like a source of energy in that it it gives us more energy to use elsewhere. But efficiency gains will run out just like the oil-- smacking us right up against the limits imposed my nature. For example, more efficient cars would just mean that we remain car dependent until we burn every last bit of oil and coal. Then everything comes crashing down because we won't have any resources left as we find that we have spent every last energy nickel on our "sustainable" cars.

Conservation thru powerdown is the only way while conservation thru better gizmos is a trap.

yes, you're correct but what I mean is to build infrastructure so a country is ready when the oil runs low and can handle it somehow and not have bunch of people stuck with SUV's and no trains or any other means of transportation, this can be only done on national level and not personal

if the goverment doesn't get involved then single persons can't do a thing

If a million off-grid energy users replaced their light bulbs to save energy, what would be the resulting effect in terms of Jevon's Paradox?

In the real world most businesses grow by borrowing money against future earnings. This means that those earnings had better grow at a faster rate than the interest being charged on that loan, or that business won't be keeping its doors open for very long.

Take that concept and expand it to a national level and you can then understand why continual growth is needed for an economy to stay healthy. Growth is only possible through the consumption of massive amounts of energy. There is really no way to work your way around that problem.

A steady state economy simply can't work.

Well to start with people would be spending a fortune on solar panels and batteries ... both of which consume energy to make of course.

With any money saved they could probably afford to buy that brand new SUV that they have been hankering for.

The following quotes are from a report produced by the UK Energy Research Centre’s Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) function. The report argues that rebound effects vary widely between different technologies, sectors and income groups so that general statements about the size of such effects can be misleading. The assessment was overseen by a panel of experts and is extremely wide ranging, reviewing more than 500 studies and reports from around the world.





[url=http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/MediaCentre/UKERCPressReleases/Releases2007/0710ReboundEffects.aspx]
The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency[/url]

Great thoughts, gg3 and Aaron! Newbie here, albeit with a long awareness of the problems. My engineer attitude wants to reduce it all to practice. Let's see if I can summarize a general position here.

The rational choice for consumers is to consume when it is cheap, which I have to do, or lose long term advantages of preparation.
The short term illogical consumer choice is to conserve. The long term based choice, in the face of dwindling resources, is to prepare for that time, as this group espouses. And living lightly on the earth NOW, is the moral choice.

Isn't that moral choice a dilemna, though, if we wrongly chose to NOT prepare? Thus, we logically arrive at the idea to maximize our preparations, particularly directed at living sustainably in the future. (A consumer attitude of course wouldn't do that.)

So, being aware of the long term, I (the world, infact) should exploit resources to the max NOW, toward a sustainable future.

This logic seems clear to me. So, I hire the guy with a backhoe to dig me a root cellar, terrace my garden area, etc. Most of my neighbors think I'm nuts, no matter that I argue coming depression. Consumers are what they are.

I tend to think gg3 has a valid point that the breakdown of Jevon will come sooner, rather than later. Tales from the 1930's would seem to bear that out, with a similiar crash on the way, and the rapid climate change he points out. I would add that, if the German Energy Watch Goup's report of Oct. '07 comes true, and oil production drops at their 7%/yr estimate, then Jevon's won't be with us for very long. The triangle of pressures from these events will each augment the others, and Jevon's will be no more.

Welcome to the board.

So you're basing this idea that Jevon will have little significance because of the consequences of GW & hydrocarbon depletion.

Isn't that kinda like saying, "Gee... if a whole bunch of people were gone, we would have plenty of everything to go 'round."

Anyway I don't think it matters.

To WHATEVER extent any valuable commodity is made more affordable, (than it would have been otherwise), it will get consumed to that same extent.

For the very obvious reason that people can afford more of this thing they want... if it's cheaper THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE.

Ta Da

Aaron, Not really what I was thinking. I agree with your logic, but I wasn't clear. I'm saying that I think demand destruction will negate Jevon's for the duration of, ironically, the depression brought about by high oil prices, and economic chaos in the financial world. Then, if climate change kicks us with a bad series of harvests, we could have Jevon's paradox held off until individual buying power makes oil affordable again. Even though oil prices would decline from demand destruction during a depression, if it's bad enough, consumption would stay down for a time. Is this possible?

Of course, in less dire circumstances, Jevon's comes back, right?

Maybe I'm just making a case for demand destruction for that period?

Right. It's not about how much you consume (i.e. spend). It's about how smartly you consume. You can blow the same amount of money in Vegas as you can on an eco-house. Some consumption is just almost instantly wasted and other consumption has a long-term tangible benefit.

Bingo. Whatever consumption minimizes any need for further consumption while still facilitating the individual's objectives/desires is the best course of action IMO. Course, people are easily led, so instilling the desire to consume/participate in order to gain social leverage via money/power/religion/etc... has been a time honored tradition.

Jevons Paradox or no Jevons Paradox - consumption will always increase until we stabilize population. Simple concept but hard for people to grasp because it involves something so sacred.

Jevon's is a relative judgement.

Of course demand destruction will impact how much is commonly available... Jevon just says that prices would be even higher without efficiency or conservation reductions.

All Jevon said is that efficiency improvements may increase consumption of a resource. Nothing about price AFAIK.

Greetings! Newbie, here.

So many forums and topics. I don't know exactly where I belong. I'm big in conservation and this is the most popular topic. So I felt this was a good place to introduce myself. Feel free to bounce me to the right spot.

I'm a 14-yr veteran of the energy industry, of which, the last 4 1/2 in wind power development. I delivered 380 MWs of wind power, and just took a job with a fossil-fuel power developer. It will be interesting to be the sole treehugger.

Like I said, I'm big in conservation. Our electric consumption last month was 186kWh, we own one (small) car, walk to work, recycle to death, etc. I drive my wife up the wall. Death by conservation? Totally!

My best friend didn't complete high-school. His friends are at about his level of formal education. I asked at what $/gallon his friends would radically start conserving gasoline. He said $20/gallon. Simply put, the elite --myself and my peers-- is showing very little by example, and the people aspire to become the elite. Of course, gasoline is one of the dozens of resources being consumed at "there is no tomorrow" pace, but, at $4/gallon, it makes it a good topic to pick on.

I'm an economist and subscribe to Jevons. The compact fluorescent light bulb, the hybrid car, the hydrogen car, etc, is a hoax just postponing the inevitable. An improved technology will only make us consume more of it. The same best friend switched his 200-W driveway bulb for a CFLB, so, as he said, "I can leave it running all night."

The concept of conversation is so skewed, it makes me laugh.

Please stay in touch. Happy Memorial Day!