OZ_DOC wrote: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.
It doesn't matter who said it... wrote:
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...)
BobWallace wrote:It doesn't matter who said it... wrote:
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"?)
... it's a relative relationship.
More than would have otherwise been consumed.
thuja wrote: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.
Is that the message you wish to carry to the world?
And you have made conventional fuels $2650 a year cheaper for everyone else, in doing so.
I don't make the news... I just report it.
Aaron wrote:... 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.
master_rb wrote:"Man's a party animal" is a classic, a lot said and explained in a short sentence
master_rb wrote: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
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests