THE Jevons Paradox Thread (merged)

[jkintree]

In theory, it would seem that the solution to Jevon's Paradox is to not allow the energy savings reaped—as a result of conservation or increased efficiency— to be made available to anyone else or used for another energy consumption purpose.

I agree with that. Remaining focused on a sustainable lifestyle includes that. We should not be afraid of making rules so that the price of gasoline reflects its costs: including military operations to secure the Middle East, global warming that results from carbon dioxide emissions, and so on.

Choices by some people to conserve, use more fuel-efficient gasoline powered vehicles, and drive hydrogen powered Single Occupancy Vehicles (SOVs), should not be the occasion for other people to continue to drive Stupid Ugly Vehicles (SUVs) at unrealistically low gasoline prices.

[Aaron]

We should not be afraid of making rules so that the price of gasoline reflects its costs:

Really?

And who's going to make these rules?

And enforce them globally?

Otherwise this whole idea of a powerdown is academic yes?

What penalties for those who violate your rules?

[jkintree]

We should not be afraid of making rules so that the price of gasoline reflects its costs:

And who's going to make these rules?
And enforce them globally?
What penalties for those who violate your rules?

Good questions. It's unlikely that the U.S. Congress will legislate the price of gasoline to reflect its costs, and if it did, would lack the authority to enforce it for other nations

We, the citizens of planet Earth, constituting ourselves as a global, direct democracy, would be the most legitimate government to make the rules. Resources such as oil fields should be globalized, and used for the well-being of all humanity. Penalties for violators would need to be discussed.

I'm writing an e-commerce module for php-nuke, with the idea that economic democracy might help lead the way to a global, direct democracy. A prototype of the Buying software can be tried at http://www.bbtbillion.org .

[Mercani]

I have been thinking about Jevon's paradox. The underlying assumption is free-market economy. In order to overcome Jevon's paradox, free market needs to be manipulated. This is not easy, but it can be done.

Assume that suddenly conservation is encouraged very much as a national policy, maybe supplemented with laws (no SUVs any more). The total US consumption of oil would drop. Now, according to Jevon's paradox this drop in consumption would be diminished by an increase elsewhere in the world (e.g China) But, what if US continues to import the same amount of oil, thus not allowing the world price to fall. Extra oil (conserved) could be put into strategic petrol reserve for use in the future for transformation to oil-free infrastructure. In this case world oil production doesn't drop, but oil is saved. The problem would be to build storage for so much oil.

Alternatively (near impossible scenario, but much more useful), all oil producing countries (maybe only OPEC) could come to an agreement and decide to reduce oil production whenever price of oil drops below $50 due to huge conservation efforts mandated all over the world. Therefore the saved oil from conservation remains in the ground and can be used later. Since oil price doesn't fall (due to supply cut-back), Jevon's paradox doesn't work.

Jevon's law is only applicable in free market environment.

Conservation can definitely be used to postpone and soften the effects of peak-oil if supplementary measures are taken to overcome Jevon's paradox.

[Aaron]

Conservation can definitely be used to postpone and soften the effects of peak-oil if supplementary measures are taken to overcome Jevon's paradox.

Monte makes the same point.

Mercani, can you think of any reason your plan might fail?

[Doly]

Alternatively (near impossible scenario, but much more useful), all oil producing countries (maybe only OPEC) could come to an agreement and decide to reduce oil production whenever price of oil drops below $50 due to huge conservation efforts mandated all over the world. Therefore the saved oil from conservation remains in the ground and can be used later. Since oil price doesn't fall (due to supply cut-back), Jevon's paradox doesn't work.

I don't think this scenario is impossible. I think it may be exactly what the OPEC is up to. For purely profiteering reasons, of course.

[Mercani]

Mercani, can you think of any reason your plan might fail?

One way it could fail:

The world goes into big recession. Government has no option but to ease conservation efforts to fuel the economy. GM is better at manufacturing SUVs than efficient compact cars.

Or the government runs out of money to buy extra oil to put into SPR.

[Aaron]

ease conservation efforts to fuel the economy

Seems pretty likely to me...

[johnmarkos]

I've been rolling the Jevons paradox around my mind for a while and I keep disagreeing with Jevons here (quite a feat considering he's been dead for over a hundred years).

Civilization, says Baron Liebig, is the economy of power, and our power is coal. It is the very economy of the use of coal that makes our industry what it is; and the more we render it efficient and economical, the more will our industry thrive, and our works of civilization grow (140-142).

In Jevons world, we are basically machines that turn coal (or oil or other forms of energy) into the benefits that we want and need in our lives. He asserts that we're insatiable w/r/t energy. But as consumers, we know that that isn't really true. We're interested in the benefits themselves: the energy use is merely a means to that end. In fact, since there are a finite number of hours in the day and a finite number of days of our lives, there's an upper limit to even the benefits that we can enjoy in that limited time.

So if we can get the same or greater benefits while using less energy, we defy Jevons.

[Leanan]

So if we can get the same or greater benefits while using less energy, we defy Jevons.

I don't think that's true. Human wants are infinite. And making more time itself can consume energy.

Example:

Washing machines were supposed to free women from the drudgery of weekly laundry.

Of course, we know what really happened. Instead of clean clothes once a week, for church, people now expect clean clothes every day. Women spend just as much time doing laundry as their great-great-grandmothers did. Using considerably more energy, of course.

And the population is increasing. So even if we froze our energy usage where it is, our energy use would increase.

[johnmarkos]

I don't think that's true. Human wants are infinite. And making more time itself can consume energy.

Example:

Washing machines were supposed to free women from the drudgery of weekly laundry.

Of course, we know what really happened. Instead of clean clothes once a week, for church, people now expect clean clothes every day. Women spend just as much time doing laundry as their great-great-grandmothers did. Using considerably more energy, of course.

And the population is increasing. So even if we froze our energy usage where it is, our energy use would increase.

If human wants were infinite, we'd want clean clothes every instant instead of just every day. However, we'd spend all our time changing our clothes. Then we'd need a robot to do it for us because we'd be too slow. But that would be silly. No, human want for clean clothes is finite.

As the person who does most of the laundry in the house, I can tell you that that person does not spend as much time doing laundry as someone from the 19th century. I start up the washer and then I go back to playing or whatever it was I was doing before.

Washers can be made more efficient. Although the population is increasing, societies should stop and reverse this population increase by providing safe, free, and effective birth control and by educating more women.

I see more benefits and less energy use here.

[Leanan]

If human wants were infinite, we'd want clean clothes every instant instead of just every day. However, we'd spend all our time changing our clothes. Then we'd need a robot to do it for us because we'd be too slow. But that would be silly. No, human want for clean clothes is finite.

It's finite only because of the cost. (Which, in the end, in an energy cost.) You can easily observe this by watching teenage girls who never do their own laundry. They'll try on clothing, then put the outfits they aren't wearing into the laundry. Because they tried it on, it's dirty. Once they have to do their own laundry, that changes.

As the person who does most of the laundry in the house, I can tell you that that person does not spend as much time doing laundry as someone from the 19th century.

I meant on average. Individual time spent may vary, of course. People with kids often do laundry every day, even several times a day. It adds up, even if you don't stand by the washing machine the whole time. Meanwhile, a lot of people don't own their own washers. They go to the laundromat, which takes even more time.

[johnmarkos]

It's finite only because of the cost. (Which, in the end, in an energy cost.) You can easily observe this by watching teenage girls who never do their own laundry. They'll try on clothing, then put the outfits they aren't wearing into the laundry. Because they tried it on, it's dirty. Once they have to do their own laundry, that changes.

I see a solution in search of a problem. They should do their own laundry now. Suddenly those tried on outfits find their way back into the drawer. Energy use declines.

A year ago I lived in an apartment complex with 17 units and two coin-operated washers. It wasn't fun but we managed somehow. And I still didn't spend that much time doing laundry for two adults.

[Leanan]

I see a solution in search of a problem. They should do their own laundry now. Suddenly those tried on outfits find their way back into the drawer. Energy use declines.

Actually, it's often the opposite. They learn to use the washer and dryer - and start using them to wash one item of clothing at a time. As in, I want to wear my red shirt tonight, so I'll wash it. Alone. Not washing the rest of their clothes, or trying to fill up the load with other family members' clothing. Many of my friends were actually banned from using the washing machine when I was a teen, for precisely this reason.

I suspect it would be different if they had to pay the utility bill, too, but few teens are expected to do that.

[johnmarkos]

Actually, it's often the opposite. They learn to use the washer and dryer - and start using them to wash one item of clothing at a time. As in, I want to wear my red shirt tonight, so I'll wash it. Alone. Not washing the rest of their clothes, or trying to fill up the load with other family members' clothing. Many of my friends were actually banned from using the washing machine when I was a teen, for precisely this reason.

I suspect it would be different if they had to pay the utility bill, too, but few teens are expected to do that.

Sounds like the parent needs a coin-operated washer.

[MonteQuest]

Although the population is increasing, societies should stop and reverse this population increase by providing safe, free, and effective birth control and by educating more women.

Just a side note. The population increase is not due to the birth rate but due to a decrease in the death rate that allowed more people to live longer and produce their maximum offspring.

If we instituted zero population growth today, it would take 50 years to achieve no net increase in the population due to age demographics. 47% of many developing countries population are under 15 years of age.

To reverse the exponential growth in population now, we must increase the death rate.

[ArimoDave]

To reverse the exponential growth in population now, we must increase the death rate.

Isn't that what war over oil is all about?

But on to another topic. What happened to the efficiencies of the late 70's early 80's cars. The VW diesel rabbit (golf for those outside the US) I used to drive got 56 miles to the gallon without trying. I could get a many as 72 m/g.

If all cars got that kind of milage or better, but remained rather expensive to purchase, and perhaps if the federal excise tax increased, wouldn't our roads be in better shape, and we wouldn't be worrying as much about PO at this point?

[johnmarkos]

To reverse the exponential growth in population now, we must increase the death rate.

Well, let's not do that then (except by having more old people).

[MonteQuest]

But on to another topic. What happened to the efficiencies of the late 70's early 80's cars. The VW diesel rabbit (golf for those outside the US) I used to drive got 56 miles to the gallon without trying. I could get a many as 72 m/g.

If all cars got that kind of milage or better, but remained rather expensive to purchase, and perhaps if the federal excise tax increased, wouldn't our roads be in better shape, and we wouldn't be worrying as much about PO at this point?

At this point yes, but what about at a point farther in the future? Prolong ing our "phantom carrying capacity" just leaves the hard answers to our descendants to deal with.

Those efficiencies were cast aside via Jevon's Paradox and Reagans "morning in America".

[Leanan]

Coincidentally, today's Dear Abby was about a 7-year-old girl who generates mountains of laundry:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 440023.htm

Abby's suggestion was the same: make her help.

Raising the death rate won't help reduce the population. It sounds counterintuitive, but lowering the death rate actually helps lower the birth rate.

Back in the '60s and '70s, a lot of people worried about the "population bomb." A Malthusian nightmare was predicted, as the population grew exponentially, while resources could not.

Well, the population bomb was diffused. The earth's population is still increasing, but at nowhere near the rates it was 40 years ago. Just about everywhere but the U.S., population growth rates are slowing. (And in the U.S., population growth is mostly due to high immigration rates.)

What happened? It wasn't just birth control. Foreign aid groups found that birth control alone did not reduce family size. Instead, better health care, nutrition, sanitation, and political stability led to lower birth rates. Why? Because, it turns out, most women don't want to have 10 children. They do that when there's a high infant mortality rate. If you're not sure any of your children will live, you have more of them, as insurance. OTOH, if you're confident your kids will live to adulthood, having 2 or 3 is enough.

Other factors that diffused the population bomb: women's rights and urbanization. Men often want as many children as possible. It's the women who don't. So women who feel they have the right tell their husbands, "No, sorry, the oven's closed" are more likely to have small families. Urbanization has also led to smaller families, because children who are useful farm hands in the country are only extra mouths to feed in a crowded city apartment.

The ironic thing is, when TSHTF, these factors may well be reversed. And population will start to grow, at the time it most needs to shrink.