[halcyon]

If one only taxes energy, that'll lead to a higher efficiency in energy use (with a high enough tax).

However, if one at the same time taxes / rations energy AND the consumables/services produced with energy, then the absolute consumption can go down.

But that is not a free market and most people cannot think in ways of a non-free market (well actually we don't have a free market, but a semi one).

Another way of asking the question, imho is:

Was the free market designed for controlled slowdown or can it only slow down through a crash (i.e. reducing it's own operational environment into a non-supporting state)?

Historical examples anyone?

[MonteQuest]

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.

As has been acknowledged all along. But...efficiency gains will still lower the price...relative to what it would have been...even in a declining supply environment.

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.

The "obsession", as you call it, has to do with proposals of conservation and efficiency gains being solutions/mitigations now to the event of peak oil.

Not.

[BobWallace]

But from a macroeconomic viewpoint, your conservation efforts are simply shifting the chits on the table. You may be "conserving" by using less apparent fossil fuels, but you are using fossil fuels in the form of the production materials neccessary to produce solar panels, fuels for distribution, etc.

And from a larger persepctive, if your efforts really pay off and do conserve fossil fuels, and your neighbors and larger community do the same, then there will be more supply of fossil fuels on the market. This in turn will make fossil fuels cheaper (due to the glut) and some community somewhere else will take advantage of the cheap price of fossil fuels.

So on a larger level, you are making no difference whatsoever and in fact may be causing the unintended consequence of spurring excessive consumption elsewhere. That means that on a larger scale, your choices and your community's "Green" choices to conserve may actually have the adverse effect of causing more consumption.

(but they could do with a spell checker...)

This clearly illustrates the problem that doomers have when taking "refuge" in Jeavons Paradox.

Notice how there is no/nada/zero/zip mention of the fact that oil is/or will be declining in supply?

There's a third, and unrecognized, factor in the formula.

One need not worry about conservation driving up consumption if there is less and less to consume. What is saved by conservation simply lowers demand to meet dwindling supply.

Matching conservation with supply drop can mean more or less stable prices which mean less economic disruption.

Using Jeavons Paradox to explain how conservation is of no value is like giving directions for driving from New York to Paris and ignoring that 'puddle' in between.

(Might we change the title of this thread to something like "Jevons Paradox - False Hope for Doomers"?)

[Aaron]

But from a macroeconomic viewpoint, your conservation efforts are simply shifting the chits on the table. You may be "conserving" by using less apparent fossil fuels, but you are using fossil fuels in the form of the production materials neccessary to produce solar panels, fuels for distribution, etc.

And from a larger persepctive, if your efforts really pay off and do conserve fossil fuels, and your neighbors and larger community do the same, then there will be more supply of fossil fuels on the market. This in turn will make fossil fuels cheaper (due to the glut) and some community somewhere else will take advantage of the cheap price of fossil fuels.

So on a larger level, you are making no difference whatsoever and in fact may be causing the unintended consequence of spurring excessive consumption elsewhere. That means that on a larger scale, your choices and your community's "Green" choices to conserve may actually have the adverse effect of causing more consumption.

(but they could do with a spell checker...)

This clearly illustrates the problem that doomers have when taking "refuge" in Jeavons Paradox.

Notice how there is no/nada/zero/zip mention of the fact that oil is/or will be declining in supply?

There's a third, and unrecognized, factor in the formula.

One need not worry about conservation driving up consumption if there is less and less to consume. What is saved by conservation simply lowers demand to meet dwindling supply.

Matching conservation with supply drop can mean more or less stable prices which mean less economic disruption.

Using Jeavons Paradox to explain how conservation is of no value is like giving directions for driving from New York to Paris and ignoring that 'puddle' in between.

(Might we change the title of this thread to something like "Jevons Paradox - False Hope for Doomers"?)

I'm not sure how many times I have said this... in this very thread...

But it's a relative relationship.

More than would have otherwise been consumed.

[BobWallace]

... it's a relative relationship.

More than would have otherwise been consumed.

'Tis a very thin hair that you split.

Jeavons Paradox is frequently flung into the mix by doomers as a way to poo-poo any attempt at conserving our way (help to conserve our way) out of this mess.

Best, IMHO, to just holler "BOGUS!!!" when it appears in its "We're all going to die!!!" garb.

In fact, does this thread not bear the title "Death by conservation"?

Is that the message you wish to carry to the world?

[Revi]

Well Revi- from your vantage point, and the vantage point of the folks starting this new industry, there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. In fact, it makes complete sense and I would encourage it.

But from a macroeconomic viewpoint, your conservation efforts are simply shifting the chits on the table. You may be "conserving" by using less apparent fossil fuels, but you are using fossil fuels in the form of the production materials neccessary to produce solar panels, fuels for distribution, etc.

And from a larger persepctive, if your efforts really pay off and do conserve fossil fuels, and your neighbors and larger community do the same, then there will be more supply of fossil fuels on the market. This in turn will make fossil fuels cheaper (due to the glut) and some community somewhere else will take advantage of the cheap price of fossil fuels.

So on a larger level, you are making no difference whatsoever and in fact may be causing the unintended consequence of spurring excessive consumption elsewhere. That means that on a larger scale, your choices and your community's "Green" choices to conserve may actually have the adverse effect of causing more consumption.

But...the question becomes- so what should you do? Throw up your hands and stop conserving. Hell no- because you are seeing an immediate visible economic effect for yourself. You are also trying to reduce your footprint and live a life with less fossil fuels- knowing they will become scarce and exhorbitant in price soon.

An example would be- your whole community is addicted to cocaine. But if your community makes a concerted effort to stop snorting cocaine, the price of coke will plummet and some poor fools down the road will take advantage of the cheaper price and snort a lot more coke. Is that your fault? No.

So keep on conserving...its the right thing to do. But don't imagine you are making any dent on the fossil fuel energy crisis. You may be making it worse.

I don't really care about the larger picture. I am saving over $2650 a year from the things I'm doing. I employed a bunch of people over a few weeks to install the solar system. They were from the next county over, so the money stayed around here. I take a hot shower every day and bless the sun for providing it. I bought less propane and maybe gave somebody else the chance to use some someplace else.

If that makes me a fool, or a bad person, I guess that makes me a happy one.

[Aaron]

I don't really care about the larger picture.

And that... my well-intentioned friend... is why Peak Oil is a problem.

I am saving over $2650 a year from the things I'm doing.

And you have made conventional fuels $2650 a year cheaper for everyone else, in doing so.

Is that the message you wish to carry to the world?

I don't make the news... I just report it.

[BobWallace]

And you have made conventional fuels $2650 a year cheaper for everyone else, in doing so.

He's also set an example. People are going to look at what he's done and realize that they could do the same and save themselves some bucks.

He's taken himself at least partially off the oil teat. That's what we all have to do. He's just an early adopter.

He's also boosted the mitigation industries. Increased purchase of alternative 'stuff' means more innovation and decreased costs due to economies of scale.

Don't worry about falling prices due to some of us cutting back. Prices will take care of themselves due to falling supplies.

I don't make the news... I just report it.

That's just as bogus as Fox being "fair and balanced".

You've set yourself up as a gatekeeper of the news. You (I assume I'm talking to the site founder/owner) set the tone of this site in the way you run it. You are "making" the news at least in some small manner.

You, and all of us, "make" the news in our choices of what to discuss and the tone in which we discuss it.

[gg3]

Yes, Monte & Aaron set the tone, but we're all free to argue with them, and we very often do.

There is a point at which Jevon's paradox ceases to operate.

And that is the point of "network collapse" in the economy: the point at which the global trade in products, services, and financial instruments breaks down. For a simple example, when it costs more to transport something than it does to produce it locally or use a substitute, people will switch.

Over a period of time, the increasing costs of the embodied energy in all the things we use, will force a reduction in consumption levels.

Conservation will happen in conjunction with an overall contraction in the economy.

Economic contraction is conventionally thought of as recession or depression.

And there is another factor to consider.

This week we've seen two major findings released with respect to the climate crisis. One is that the melting of Arctic ice is now far worse than the worst-case IPCC forecast: the observed melting now, is what it would have been in about another century according to the models. We are a century further down the drain at the North Pole than we should be. The other major finding is that the oceans are apparently absorbing less CO2 than expected, and the rate of absorption is beginning to decline.

It is probable that if we have two data points that are convergent, these are not the only two, and there are more things going on that are examples of climate change occurring far more rapidly than has been expected.

In other words, we don't have any ten years to fix this; the poo is hitting the propeller right now; and the probability of avoiding a catastrophic dieoff of humans is shrinking by the minute.

Nature is going to force our hand whether we like it or not: there will be an "economic contraction" because the number of humans on this planet will drop off to about 1 - 2 billion within the next century or at most two centuries. It's going to be an ugly ride down the slippery slope.

In the face of this, there is a darwinian advantage for those who have learned to live well with fewer resources.

In the past, "be fruitful and multiply" conferred an advantage. In the future, "be frugal and subtract" will confer the advantage.

Conservation at present frees up resources for someone else to squander where you can't see them. When there is network collapse in the economy, the localized gains from conservation won't be offset by wastage elsewhere, they will instead accrue to the benefit of the locales where the conservation occurs.

Contraction of the economy will coincide with expansion of physical labor.

As for all those current auto-centric jobs going into unemployment mode, their kids will have plenty of work to do making horse shoes and carriages and providing feed for the horses. Or they'll just get caught up in the dieoff and drop dead like 2/3 of the rest of humanity.

[Aaron]

As usual a brilliant analysis GG.

None of it disputes the premise however... people consume to the level of their ability.

In fact, your argument supports the idea that the only significant reduction in consumption will come at gun-point, so to speak.

This exposes the myth of conservation as it applies to fungible commodities like energy. No reductions via conservation are possible, & only scarcity will actually lower consumption.

-----------------------

On another note... I do appreciate the idea that my thoughts may "color" the arguments presented this way or that. But I can hardly avoid the consequences of my convictions... same as anyone.

The alternative is a certain & practiced dishonesty... or silence.

I post under the same rules as everyone else does.

My own staff Moderates my posts if it's warranted.

And of course, folks are free to disagree & point out why they think I'm wrong.

In the end I think it's an instructive exercise to explore topics like Jevon & the effect this may have on a post-peak world.

PAX Friends...

[inculcated]

... people consume to the level of their ability.

In fact, your argument supports the idea that the only significant reduction in consumption will come at gun-point, so to speak.

MSM concurrs:

Efficiency gains do not equal net drop in consumption levels

[fonzcad3]

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.

[Aaron]

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.

[thuja]

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...

[LoneSnark]

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.

[Aaron]

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.

[master_rb]

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

[TheTurtle]

"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.

[thuja]

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

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...