[Aaron]

The Doomer religion demands that they support Jevon to their dying breath. Without his Paradox, their argument falls apart. [ducks]

No, Conserve all you want, Things just take longer. Drop to 10% of your original usage and things take 10 times as long. 1 year, 10 years To a doomer it really doesn't matter you're just delaying the inevitable.

Not according to Jevon.

Drop to 10% of your original usage and things take 10 times as long.

Jevon says that your conservation will encourage energy use by making it more affordable.

Unless you can enforce mandatory energy conservation world-wide,
(Which is patently absurd), demand grows to available supply.

While I'm normally open to argument, this particular one is simple & obvious.

Those opposing the Jevon principal I suspect of being troll-posters.

Since there is no rational argument to defeat Jevon...

This idea that Jevon does not apply when overall supplies are shrinking is counter-intuitive and the last refuge of the weak mind.

Therefore, if you think additional supplies won't lower prices relative to what they would have been otherwise, then you are either arguing for the sake of argument, (& you are a disingenuous liar), or you are a moron with no voice in this debate.

[strider3700]

I wasn't leaning either way about jevon's paradox.
If we don't conserve we're scrwed.

If we conserve and jevon is correct then we're screwed at about the same amount of time as if we don't conserve.

If we conserve and jevon is wrong we're screwed a little further down the road.

All paths lead to We are screwed.

[Omnitir]

No, Conserve all you want, Things just take longer. Drop to 10% of your original usage and things take 10 times as long. 1 year, 10 years To a doomer it really doesn't matter you're just delaying the inevitable.

That’s kind of like saying that curing cancer in a cancer patient wouldn’t matter because they are still going to die someday– all you’ve done is given them a longer life.

This idea that Jevon does not apply when overall supplies are shrinking is counter-intuitive and the last refuge of the weak mind.

Therefore, if you think additional supplies won't lower prices relative to what they would have been otherwise, then you are either arguing for the sake of argument, (& you are a disingenuous liar), or you are a moron with no voice in this debate.

In other words; “if you don’t agree with me you either dumb or a troll, so shutup unless you agree with me.”

I’m honestly I’m not trolling and hey, I may be dumb but I’m no fool, but honestly, how can conservation increase oil consumption when there is ZERO excess oil?

[MyOtherID]

Unless you can enforce mandatory energy conservation world-wide, (Which is patently absurd), demand grows to available supply.

I see you suffer from the common human frailty of an inability to imagine that which has not already occurred.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

[MonteQuest]

I’m honestly I’m not trolling and hey, I may be dumb but I’m no fool, but honestly, how can conservation increase oil consumption when there is ZERO excess oil?

So, you maintain that increases in efficiency and conservation will not create more supply?

I thought that was the point of conservation: to create more supply.

If more of a commodity becomes available, does it not lower the price in a free market?

Won't the lower price increase consumption up to the available supply?

[MyOtherID]

So, you maintain that increases in efficiency and conservation will not create more supply?

Obviously it will preserve a diminishing supply for a longer period. Enforced conservation, such as improving cafe standards, will definitely do this, especially if done on a global scale and with global agreement, which is not that hard to imagine.

If more of a commodity becomes available, does it not lower the price in a free market?

No, not if the supply is steadily diminishing. It simply holds the price constant or thereabouts.

Won't the lower price increase consumption up to the available supply?

Only in the most knee-jerk, unmanaged context. Doomers are betting on a oil free-for-all in the coming years, but I think GW and high oil prices are going to make every human being sit up and take notice, and the majority will be prepared to act for the greater good.

[grabby]

How many politicians in Wahingotn today act for the greater good?

Everyone acts for what they can get to make it LOOKlike for the greater good .

The real motive, is MORE votes, more money more leisure time, not better for mankind.


You bankaccount would for the greater good, be better if you donated it to feed the children rather than buying that newer laptop.

this greater good is a sham. No one works for the greater good, unless they can get a truckload of free oil for themselves.

If they are good politicians they will be able to make it look like they are working for the greater good, yes, that is the goal. but you have to realize this is not the ultimate motive.

It will definitely be a free for all in the name of the greater good.

nukes will be used.

[Doly]

How many politicians in Wahingotn today act for the greater good?

I don't know, but I don't doubt that there are some. I think they may even be the majority.

It's very easy to be cynical, but in all professions that I have seen from the inside where your work is supposed to be about helping people (teachers, doctors, IT tech support), professionals are actually thinking about the greater good of their clients. I don't know why politics should be significantly different.

And if you tell me you can make more money with politics, you haven't looked at some doctors' salaries.

[mididoctors]

I’m honestly I’m not trolling and hey, I may be dumb but I’m no fool, but honestly, how can conservation increase oil consumption when there is ZERO excess oil?

So, you maintain that increases in efficiency and conservation will not create more supply?

I thought that was the point of conservation: to create more supply.

If more of a commodity becomes available, does it not lower the price in a free market?

Won't the lower price increase consumption up to the available supply?

I don't pretend to know whether this jevons paradox holds true or not but it's a premise I think we should try hard to test out


Boris
london

[Aaron]

Unless you can enforce mandatory energy conservation world-wide, (Which is patently absurd), demand grows to available supply.

I see you suffer from the common human frailty of an inability to imagine that which has not already occurred.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."

"The fault dear Brutus, lies not within our stars, but in ourselves"

[Aaron]

Quote:
If more of a commodity becomes available, does it not lower the price in a free market?


No, not if the supply is steadily diminishing. It simply holds the price constant or thereabouts.

Oh come on JD, (opps... I mean ID... just a typo), surely you understand that by your own reasoning that means prices would have been higher without the additional supplies your greedy conservation produced...

...curbing consumption.

In other words you have "saved" nothing.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Obviously it will preserve a diminishing supply for a longer period. Enforced conservation, such as improving cafe standards, will definitely do this, especially if done on a global scale and with global agreement, which is not that hard to imagine.


Phew, I'm glad that ones' sorted out. Thanks superstar.

[MyOtherID]

You say "tomahto", I say "tomayto".

Both scenarios could play out. There, I've admitted your Doomeristic predictions may come to pass. Can you admit that my more positive outcome is possible as well?

Or are you too locked in to your [s]religion[/s] beliefs?

[Aaron]

You say "tomahto", I say "tomayto".

Both scenarios could play out. There, I've admitted your Doomeristic predictions may come to pass. Can you admit that my more positive outcome is possible as well?

Or are you too locked in to your [s]religion[/s] beliefs?

Now that's good arguin'

I do believe it's physically possible...

But my experience with human nature tells me that it's unlikely.

Now once I rule the world from high atop Mt. Reaper, I'll mandate such conservation under penalty of death.

But without such absolute controls... I think enough greedy, selfish folks will "cheat" the system to negate any potential benefits.

And even after my coup of the Earth as Hegemon, I fully expect to keep my executioners busy 24/7.

Culling the energy thieves...

[dunewalker]

Aaron, this is off-topic and old news, but I've been wondering since last summer what you did during the great evacuation of Houston before Rita. I appreciated your leaving the webcam on at home. My guess is that upon seeing the hordes bottlenecked on the freeways you hung a u & went home, cracked open a beer and watched the show...or no-show as it turned out.

[MonteQuest]

So, you maintain that increases in efficiency and conservation will not create more supply?

Obviously it will preserve a diminishing supply for a longer period. Enforced conservation, such as improving cafe standards, will definitely do this, especially if done on a global scale and with global agreement, which is not that hard to imagine.

So, the zero supply argument does not hold water, correct? Conservation or increases in efficiency will stretch available supply further.

If more of a commodity becomes available, does it not lower the price in a free market?

No, not if the supply is steadily diminishing. It simply holds the price constant or thereabouts.

Please cite an historical example of this being so. And, in a free market, if the price doesn't lower as a result of the conservation/efficiency increases, then wherein lies the incentive to conserve at all? Besides, with conservation and increases in efficiency, the supply is suppose to increase, not diminish, right? This was the whole purpose of conserving in the first place. So, which is it, JD?

Did you not read that I just said that "more of the commodity becomes available"? The supply is not steadily diminishing, it is increasing through our conservation efforts. That was the mitigation, right?

Won't the lower price increase consumption up to the available supply?

Only in the most knee-jerk, unmanaged context. Doomers are betting on a oil free-for-all in the coming years, but I think GW and high oil prices are going to make every human being sit up and take notice, and the majority will be prepared to act for the greater good.

And abolish the free market and capitalism in the process? I think not. You are counting on a paradigm shift in thinking? Altrusim, et al to avoid a major socio-economic upheaval? I think there will eventually be such a shift, but only after all attempts to maintain the status quo have been exhausted. What we "doomers" are betting on is consistent human nature.

By the way, the call for conservation and increases in efficiency were to be applied pre-peak or nearly so, right? Not after TSHHTF. This was to mitigate the decline, right?

As long as the current capitalistic free market system functions, attempts to use conservation and increases in efficiencies as a solution to mitigate peak oil will be met with Jevon's Paradox.

[MonteQuest]

I don't pretend to know whether this jevons paradox holds true or not but it's a premise I think we should try hard to test out.

Store owners do it every day...they put stuff on sale to increase sales.

Works every time. Nothing to test.

[Aaron]

Aaron, this is off-topic and old news, but I've been wondering since last summer what you did during the great evacuation of Houston before Rita. I appreciated your leaving the webcam on at home. My guess is that upon seeing the hordes bottlenecked on the freeways you hung a u & went home, cracked open a beer and watched the show...or no-show as it turned out.

Was brutal...

9 hr evacuation in 100f heat.

A freinds mom died from heat stroke.

Could have stayed, but didn't know at the time.

[MyOtherID]

So, you maintain that increases in efficiency and conservation will not create more supply?

Obviously it will preserve a diminishing supply for a longer period. Enforced conservation, such as improving cafe standards, will definitely do this, especially if done on a global scale and with global agreement, which is not that hard to imagine.

So, the zero supply argument does not hold water, correct? Conservation or increases in efficiency will stretch available supply further.

Yes, but it's all about buying TIME so that measures can be taken to avert collapse. Obviously.

If more of a commodity becomes available, does it not lower the price in a free market?

No, not if the supply is steadily diminishing. It simply holds the price constant or thereabouts.

Please cite an historical example of this being so. And, in a free market, if the price doesn't lower as a result of the conservation/efficiency increases, then wherein lies the incentive to conserve at all? Besides, with conservation and increases in efficiency, the supply is suppose to increase, not diminish, right? This was the whole purpose of conserving in the first place. So, which is it, JD?

1) I'm not JD. Honestly. 2) We have no examples because we have NEVER had a situation like this before (depletion of natural energy source counteracted by globally mandated conservation). It will not be a free market, but a regulated market. Supply cannot increase if resource is shrinking.

Did you not read that I just said that "more of the commodity becomes available"? The supply is not steadily diminishing, it is increasing through our conservation efforts. That was the mitigation, right?

You're overlooking the regulation part, in all your comments.

Won't the lower price increase consumption up to the available supply?

Only in the most knee-jerk, unmanaged context. Doomers are betting on a oil free-for-all in the coming years, but I think GW and high oil prices are going to make every human being sit up and take notice, and the majority will be prepared to act for the greater good.

And abolish the free market and capitalism in the process? I think not.

Yes, Yes. Yes. Stop imagining that this cannot happen. It can, and I bet it will. Oil use will be regulated, or there will be wars everywhere.

You are counting on a paradigm shift in thinking?

Yes, and you are counting on infinite stupidity.

.... What we "doomers" are betting on is consistent human nature.

QED

As long as the current capitalistic free market system functions, attempts to use conservation and increases in efficiencies as a solution to mitigate peak oil will be met with Jevon's Paradox.

I agree. But I sincerely believe people will take it incredibly seriously, just as we are, and change, using co-operation and conservation for the general good of all. That capability is what distinguishes us from other animals.

[mididoctors]

I don't pretend to know whether this jevons paradox holds true or not but it's a premise I think we should try hard to test out.

Store owners do it every day...they put stuff on sale to increase sales.

Works every time. Nothing to test.

every time?

why is there unsold stock?

is energy the same sort of thing?

is the redistribution of consumption beneficial even if globally demand is not suppressed by some people using less? is there any advantage in that scenario over one where the consumption remains concentrated?

Boris
London