Monte, I have to say at the outset that it is really great to have you back. Your influence on this site has been outstanding especially toward other members. However, I'm not completely satisfied with your response regarding efficiency, and I'm not sure that I can offer a complete explanation.
From what I've read, the effect of JP is quite small (typically <10% and no more than 30%). Note this from the OP:
Between 2005 and 2010, 11 of the IEA member states made energy savings equal to $420 billion (€310bn), higher than from any other single fuel source. Without this, the countries would now be consuming about two-thirds more energy than at present.
In the follow-up "energycollective" article, the authors refer to the rebound effect:
A NYT opinion piece “The Problem with Energy Efficiency” wrongly argued that energy efficiency advances only encourage more global energy consumption and cannot make much difference in curbing climate change. This is puzzling because numerous studies, including the two studies the authors themselves cite (and mischaracterize) – the IEA Multiple Benefits Study discussed above and a 2014 IPCC Working Group Report - and one they didn’t by NRDC, refute their claim that energy efficiency causes large “rebounds,” or increases in consumption.
If such a significant “rebound” existed, U.S. energy use growth rates would exceed those of our economy, but the opposite is true over more than three decades – thanks in large part to efficiency. In fact, the IEA and IPCC reports considered the “rebound” possibility and still overwhelmingly endorsed efficiency’s ability to cut energy use and pollution without stifling the standard of living for developing areas.
Furthermore, there are situations where JP doesn't apply;
renewable energy (you can't over-exploit the sun), and
zero energy buildings.
I looked at the
wiki article:
The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to impose environmental policies, or to increase fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[7][8] Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil.[11] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]
The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency by itself is unlikely to reduce fuel use, and that sustainable energy policy must rely on other types of government interventions.[12] As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, the imposition of conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs does not cause an increase in fuel use. To ensure that efficiency-enhancing technological improvements reduce fuel use, efficiency gains must be paired with government intervention that reduces demand (e.g., green taxes, a cap and trade programme, or higher fuel taxes)
Finally, in the debunked article I referred to, your quote is taken out of context. If you read further down, it states this:
Finally, even though air conditioners were 28% more efficient in 2005 than in 1993, air conditioners last between 15 and 25 years. Using the mid-range lifespan of 20 years, and assuming that efficiency increased gradually from 1993 to 2005, and accounting for the introduction of new AC units associated with new home construction (about 1.5% of the housing stock in any given year), I calculated the efficiency of the average central air unit in service in 2005 to be about 11.5% more efficient than the average unit in 2009.
Accounting only for the increased income over the timeframe and fixing Owen’s mistake of assuming that every air conditioner in service is new, a few rough calculations point to an increase in energy use for air conditioning of about 30% from 1993 to 2005, despite the gains in efficiency. Taking into account the larger size of new homes and the shift from room to central air units could easily account for the rest.
All of the increase in energy consumption for air conditioning is easily explained by factors completely unrelated to increases in energy efficiency. All of these things would have happened anyway. Without the increases in efficiency, energy consumption would have been much higher.
I said at the first paragraph that I cannot offer a complete explanation. I know that there is other information about energy efficiency that I have missed but I do accept the conclusion of the IEA that energy efficiency is the "world's first fuel".
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.