THE Jevons Paradox Thread (merged)

[kaktus]

Code: Select all

And that is just what my question tries to elicit. What is the compromise?

I can only think of three alternatives (except from doing nothing) to handle the failure of markets:
1 that EU and US together suddenly decides to effectively tax and/or to use quotas on the using up of natural resources (taxes on CO2 for example) and forces the rest to join.
2 a sort of war economy where the usage of resources are centrally planned on state level.
3 that the trend to secure resources by military means escalates so that those with money get what they want.

Perhaps alt 1 is so unlikely that one should work for alt 2? if one don't like alt 3 of course.

[MonteQuest]

Code: Select all

And that is just what my question tries to elicit. What is the compromise?

I can only think of three alternatives (except from doing nothing) to handle the failure of markets:
1 that EU and US together suddenly decides to effectively tax and/or to use quotas on the using up of natural resources (taxes on CO2 for example) and forces the rest to join.
2 a sort of war economy where the usage of resources are centrally planned on state level.
3 that the trend to secure resources by military means escalates so that those with money get what they want.

Perhaps alt 1 is so unlikely that one should work for alt 2? if one don't like alt 3 of course.

Then you run into the shadow rebound effect explained by Jeff Vail here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2499

[kaktus]

Thanks for the link. Lots of food for thought at the Oil drum and a better debating climate also.

So you take the "shadow rebound effect" as impossible to limit? That it is a question of a perfect zero sum game? I havent done so much thinking about it but it seems a very strong claim to do.
There is absolutely a good point made that it is crucial how an efficiency gain is spent. But say fe that a efficiency gain is used together with a decision to keep budget (well, almost) , do you really think it still would not matter at all? That this rebound effect is 100%? Or if an efficiency gain is used on RES projects instead?

[MonteQuest]

Thanks for the link. Lots of food for thought at the Oil drum and a better debating climate also.

So you take the "shadow rebound effect" as impossible to limit? That it is a question of a perfect zero sum game? I havent done so much thinking about it but it seems a very strong claim to do.
There is absolutely a good point made that it is crucial how an efficiency gain is spent. But say fe that a efficiency gain is used together with a decision to keep budget (well, almost) , do you really think it still would not matter at all? That this rebound effect is 100%? Or if an efficiency gain is used on RES projects instead?

You would have to sequester the gains or the money saved, right?

As long as it is let loose into the economy, it will increase energy consumption.

Matters not if it is beneficial or not. GDP is GDP. Katrina boosted GDP, no?

[gg3]

Geewhiz, JPL, just as I'm sitting down to eat a meal, I read your post about the cockerel. Yow. BTW, this is a good example of why people need to practice if they're going to have anything to do with firearms. Any of our recent military veterans or police officers here could probably have dispatched the bird with a single shot. BTW, if the bird was exhibiting signs of some kind of psychotic disorder, it may have had an infection of the kind that could be potentially dangerous to humans and needs to be reported to the public health authorities.

-----

Beware of so-called solutions that increase the net entropy of social systems. Breaking up the infrastructure and dumbing-down the population are examples of this type. Civilized societies, by which I mean those that exhibit ongoing decrease in internal violence and ongoing increase in stored information, are highly syntropic (negentropic), and this syntropy is very difficult to build & defend, and very easy to damage.

Look where we are now in the US with 30-something percent of our population being opposed to basic science (evolution). Look where that's gotten us. Now check out any urban ghetto with a high dropout rate and a high level of gang activity. Is that what you want? Hell no.

The trick is to reduce the consumption and resource throughput without increasing the level of violence or decreasing the level of stored knowledge. This is not easy.

My proposal was to start a cultural meme about reducing consumption while investing all surplus income in sequestering nonrenewable resources and carbon. The chic expensive lifestyle that looks like being a member of the working poor. I believe it would work while not increasing social entropy. Now that I think of it, the 1960s counterculture tried this one half-way: glorified poverty, but no mechanism for investing in resource & carbon sequestration. Hmm, there may be some lessons to learn there.

And here's another one for you: legalize recreational marijuana and promote it like crazy. Pot is the ideal powerdown drug: makes people feel totally satisfied to just sit there and enjoy whatever they are doing at the moment, with no need to strive or shop or consume or whatever. And yet apparently it doesn't make people stupid either, or interfere with learning (at least by adults). A society where pot is as common as coffee, is going to be a society that is powering-down whether anyone knows it or not. And yeah, I'm serious. (Maybe this ties into the 1960s thing about glorified poverty? But which came first, the glorification of poverty or the pot smoking? Hmm, more research to do...)

[bshirt]

-----
And here's another one for you: legalize recreational marijuana and promote it like crazy. Pot is the ideal powerdown drug: makes people feel totally satisfied to just sit there and enjoy whatever they are doing at the moment, with no need to strive or shop or consume or whatever. And yet apparently it doesn't make people stupid either, or interfere with learning (at least by adults). A society where pot is as common as coffee, is going to be a society that is powering-down whether anyone knows it or not. And yeah, I'm serious. (Maybe this ties into the 1960s thing about glorified poverty? But which came first, the glorification of poverty or the pot smoking? Hmm, more research to do...)

lol!!

Actually, the more I think about it, the more good sense it makes.

Folks are far less violent but they eat much, much more (that's why I gave it up many years ago....on a hot date all I could think of was getting a dozen or so BigMacs....she wasn't impressed.....time to go back to the old standby....beer).

It would also counter the boredom of powerdown superbly. As a community activity, there could be huge bong-a-thons for conversation and music. It could easily be grown and harvested locally.

[kaktus]

monte wrote

You would have to sequester the gains or the money saved, right?
As long as it is let loose into the economy, it will increase energy consumption.
Matters not if it is beneficial or not. GDP is GDP. Katrina boosted GDP, no?

thats sounds somwhat like a stock respons. then nothing can ever mattier. I do th ink it matters what we do. and Katrina only boosted GDP in a very short perspective. and it is mainly the fossil energy consumption which is the problem.

A fast increase in energy prices will automatically give a economic crunch so we dont have to worry consumption willgo down. will you then still argue we are as well of with a million kilometers of highway as with a thousnd kilometers of railway or whatever choice you can make in public fundings.

[MonteQuest]

A fast increase in energy prices will automatically give a economic crunch so we dont have to worry consumption willgo down. will you then still argue we are as well of with a million kilometers of highway as with a thousnd kilometers of railway or whatever choice you can make in public fundings.

Last time I looked, energy didn't care what it got used for. If the goal is to reduce overall consumption, 9which is the crux of the debate) it matters not what you use it for.

[gg3]

Re. a fast increase in energy prices: it will have to be faster than we're presently seeing.

This evening I heard two stories on the radio (KCBS news) one after the other:

One, the economy is turning crappy, housing and financials and all that stuff are on the way down.

Two, the price of oil is up to $78/bbl, *because* the market expects the economy to do well and demand to go up!

I kid you not. Whereas in fact oil is at $78 because supply is starting to go flat while demand keeps increasing, until Ma Nature jerks our chain hard enough to really get our attention.

I suspect we're going to need to see gas in the US go above $5/gallon before people start to come out of denial. On the other hand a few years ago we were all saying $3 was the magic number and look where we are now. Hmm.

[kaktus]

gg3 wrote.
[quote]Re. a fast increase in energy prices: it will have to be faster than we're presently seeing.
quote]

Isnt this an example that the markets are fundamentally irrational? which means its not very easy to tell what will happen exactly. my take for today is that eventually the terrible thought that the party is over will hit people and then , and not until then, most economies will experience a crunch. and then the problem of shopaholics will have disapeared:) And: in that stage it will matter if we have chosen to invest in sustainable technology or in fossil technology.

[kaktus]

monte:

If the goal is to reduce overall consumption, 9which is the crux of the debate) it matters not what you use it for.

Not sure I got that one. you seem to say that if we want to reduce consumption we must reduce consumption. I can understand that. But even if we say it is politically impossible to be restrictive all consumption isn't necessarily 100% totally Pol Pot evil, is it? I have got the concept of "shadow effect" but I dont think it was "proved" in that oil drum thread there is a natural law saying that that the money saved on efficiency will eventually end up buying the same amount of fuel.

[MonteQuest]

monte:

If the goal is to reduce overall consumption, 9which is the crux of the debate) it matters not what you use it for.

Not sure I got that one. you seem to say that if we want to reduce consumption we must reduce consumption. I can understand that. But even if we say it is politically impossible to be restrictive all consumption isn't necessarily 100% totally Pol Pot evil, is it? .

Ah, but you see, this all came about because efficiency gains were being touted as a way to meet demand when supply declines. Even if you spend the efficiency gain on "good consumption" supply cannot meet demand.

No net reduction.

I have got the concept of "shadow effect" but I dont think it was "proved" in that oil drum thread there is a natural law saying that that the money saved on efficiency will eventually end up buying the same amount of fuel

No, it might be used to consume even more energy. I think he made the point that it balances out.

But it is hard to quantify.

Check out this:

Linky

[kaktus]

Monte

Ah, but you see, this all came about because efficiency gains were being touted as a way to meet demand when supply declines.

Ah, we have been in this debate before!
Supply always meets demand. You still stick to your own definition of demand. The point of equilibrium for a certain commodity change but thats another thing. And you dont separate different energy sources.
the example I can come up with that is close to totally inelastic in demand is insulin, because as a diabetes person you buy it at any price since you die without it, and that is still within its limits.
If gas is to expensive for me to drive as much I used to I will buy something else, perhaps a tennis racket. But then you say that the money sent into the economy will buy gas for the money I conserved so that the amount of gas consumed is the same. And thats where we don't agree. there are -substitutes- to gas for my SUV. I can decide to play tennis or take a walk in the mountains using the train system that luckily was in place before the peak oil crunch hit.

Another example. The paper manufactories can choos a more energy intensive production or a more chemical intensive one. the cost of the different inputs steers your decision.

[MonteQuest]

Ah, we have been in this debate before!
Supply always meets demand.

Utter nonsense. Energy is not just any commodity. It is up there with air, water, and food...and insulin.

You must have it.

You must have it to even be more efficient in it's use.

Demand destruction, due to price, will never offset the new demand for energy until there is an economic collapse.

Look at China and India. 11.9% growth in China. Using the rule of 70, that means their economic consumption will double in 5.8 years.

We hope to consume 120 mbpd in 2019. We will need to produce 200 mbpd to meet that demand and offset existing decline.

Supply isn't meeting demand right now.

[kaktus]

OK, I got your view. I learnt some. I'm sure you mean good.

Perhaps you want something to think about for the weekend: Has supply of oil met demand the last 50 years? I mean, since its only now that supply seem to peak at the same time as demand (that is your understanding of it) is increasing? Have people in poor countries like Afghanistan got their *demand* satisfied? As you say that "energy is like air" they must have, right? if they haven't, it must be because they so stupid they dont realize it.

Over and out.

[MonteQuest]

Perhaps you want something to think about for the weekend: Has supply of oil met demand the last 50 years? I mean, since its only now that supply seem to peak at the same time as demand (that is your understanding of it) is increasing? Have people in poor countries like Afghanistan got their *demand* satisfied? As you say that "energy is like air" they must have, right? if they haven't, it must be because they so stupid they dont realize it.

Say what? We don't need energy to survive? Like air, we can just stop using it?

And this thinking my friends, is why energy illiteracy is going to be an obstacle to a sustainable future. That, and an inability to think systematically, along with flat earth economics.

If energy demand on the scale we are talking about isn't satisfied, only a few things can happen:

They will meet their demand with some "other" energy source, as is happening across the globe with deforestation, biofool's plantations, etc.

Or:

They will collapse or die, as is happening across the globe.

Oil supply may always meet affordability, but it will become the least abundant necessity.

[Ludi]

If energy demand on the scale we are talking about isn't satisfied, only a few things can happen:

They will meet their demand with some "other" energy source, as is happening across the globe with deforestation...

http://www.greenbeltmovement.org/

Or:

They will collapse or die

[MonteQuest]

Your point, Ludi?

[JPL]

Your point, Ludi?

Ludi has no 'point' to make any more. Neither have I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

End of rationality.

[OZ_DOC]

It seems obvious to me, but surely jevons paradox fails if the efficiency gains occur as you slide down the back of hubberts curve (or any falling supply curve) after peak oil has been reached. Assuming there isnt mass collapse and the decline is at a rate at which conservation measures can be put in place both forced and voluntary then if those measures cut consumption at approximately the rate of the fall in supply then it is not possible for such consumptin to produce the excess supply and drop in price that causes jevons paradox to occur.

It's always seemed odd to me that the peak oil community seems obsessed with jevons paradox because it seems to me that PO is the one event which will render it null and void.