[highlander]

So.... is anybody coming down with trenchfoot yet?
An often ignored effect of the "C" word is a lack of investment in the maintenance and upgrade of the infrastructure. I believe this is a major reason why our electricity distributing grid is in such poor shape. During the good ol Enron years, there was a glut of proposed projects to generate electricity from natural gas. Most of these projects disappeared upon Enrons collapse. Did the high price of electricity promote conservation and efficiency gains? Was there a real energy distribution problem? Is there any difference between electricity then and gasoline now?

[grink1tt3n]

Perhaps one way to look at this Paradox is like a commute on a highway.

In the fast lane, you usually want to keep a distance of at least 6 cars between you and the car in front of you.

However, in any moderately busy highway, what will happen is that as soon as that space cushion is available, a driver in the next lane will pull in front of you to occupy that space.

Keeping that resource available (space in the fast lane) invites someone else to take it.

[Last_Laff]

I've read almost entire thread and I want to ask this question about Jevons' Paradox. I understand the efficiency that people try to put into from oil money to products and travel usage. We try to save what we can do, conserving as we'd think we are doing it. But it just increases the efficiency (correct me if I'm wrong as it sound about right). Like I said I understand the same effect for the alternatives.

So the question; is Jevons' Paradox itself a dangerous theory? I mean dangerous as the outcome of the peak oil? If it is, it might tell you the timing and the efficiency at what have we been doing?

[MonteQuest]

So the question; is Jevons' Paradox itself a dangerous theory? I mean dangerous as the outcome of the peak oil? If it is, it might tell you the timing and the efficiency at what have we been doing?

Jevons' Paradox is not a theory; it is an observation of past reality.

We have 150 years of empirical data to support that history.

"In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it"

[Aaron]

Conservation and efficiency save my household $2250 per year. Every year we save that amount. It has emboldened me to buy a new fuel efficient vehicle. The money we saved has allowed us to put on solar hot water panels to capture sunlight that we didn't have access to before.

The guys who came to put them on started with 1 truck a few years ago. Now they are up to 7 trucks and 14 guys working. They are exploiting a "new" energy source, but they are growing, and the local economy is benefitting. The money is staying local. These guys have families and are probably buying cars, heating houses, etc. I guess I am proposing a new way of switching energy sources. Efficiency and conservation allow more people to live an adequate life, and probably add up to more energy used, but some of it comes from an unexploited source, the sun. What's the matter with that?

I do say conservation is bad.

Conservation is Bad!

There...

Lowering the cost of energy through conservation is literally financing your neighbors in building even more factories & cars & Furbies & Paris Hilton dolls & such.

If I told you that your habits, which benefit your family, are hurting the larger society, what would be your reaction?

Screw society? My family comes first.

Even if my conservation actually encourages greater consumption of energy out there in the world, it benefits my family, so that's what I'm gonna do.

Which is exactly why we are in this boat to begin with.

Without the sacrifices of millions during WWII, the Allies might well have lost that war.

And without the sacrifice of millions more, we will lose this one.

I therefore declare a Jihad on Peak Oil.

Tongues will make clicking noises & fingers will wag condemningly.

We will burn everything combustible we can find until our planet is uninhabitable, and a tiny portion of the Earth's scorched remains will bear the mark of our shortsighted policies; pursuing technology without wisdom.

<Insert my sig here>

[Ludi]

Kind of confused by your message Aaron.



What sacrifices do you want us to be making, exactly?


Thanks.

[Last_Laff]

So the question; is Jevons' Paradox itself a dangerous theory? I mean dangerous as the outcome of the peak oil? If it is, it might tell you the timing and the efficiency at what have we been doing?

Jevons' Paradox is not a theory; it is an observation of past reality.

We have 150 years of emprical data to support that history.

"In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it"

By emprical you mean; Empyrical - containing the combustible principle of coal or empirical - relying on or derived from observation or experiment?

So if that's in italic is correct, then, my opinion is that, this observation is true in a dangerous way.

The quote you stated above makes pretty much sense without any argument.

[Aaron]

Kind of confused by your message Aaron.



What sacrifices do you want us to be making, exactly?


Thanks.

Good question.

Our first collective sacrifice will be our expectations about what is considered normal. In the west are raised to expect each generation to do a little better than the previous one. That will not be possible going forward, & for some time.... if ever.

Wartime Footing: It's been a while since the world's nations maintained a wartime economy & social structure. The depletion of conventional oil will put terrible pressure on countries to find & secure transport energy supplies. As international tensions heat-up, there will be inevitable military conflict on a regional, & perhaps global basis.

American imperialism or home-grown conflicts... makes little difference. The future is sure to include much squabbling over existing oil reserves around the world.

The Tyranny of Life.

Just being alive carries with it a certain amount of grunt work which cannot be avoided. Since many of the modern conveniences we enjoy today are based on our hydrocarbon wealth, we will sacrifice our hidden helpers as oil becomes less available.

That sounds like a marginal sacrifice until you realize just what that really means to you personally.

It is the relative glut of energy modern man has enjoyed which makes all the little gizmo's possible. Less oil = less gizmo's. This includes everything which relies in any way on transport fuels, so that's pretty much everything.

Think you don't like paying $10/gallon for gas?

Ask your wife how she would feel about paying $50/box for tampons. Or soap... thread or toothpaste.

How do you measure the hardship of an empty belly in a wealthy land? I'm sure I don't know.

Unless a new "oil" can be found, our sacrifices will be realized in our children's blood & tears, for generations to come.

Oh yeah... I'm not asking... I'm just making observations about what I think is gonna happen.

[Ludi]

Thanks, Aaron. I'll be sure to ask my wife about that.

[MonteQuest]

By emprical you mean; Empyrical - containing the combustible principle of coal or empirical - relying on or derived from observation or experiment?

So if that's in italic is correct, then, my opinion is that, this observation is true in a dangerous way.

The quote you stated above makes pretty much sense without any argument.

Yes, typo...Empirical.

[rumspringa]

A forthcoming book on Jevon's Paradox from Earthscan Publication.

<b>Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements</b>
By John M. Polimeni, Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampietro and Blake Alcott
NOT YET PUBLISHED

Hardback £65.00 ISBN: 1844074625 / 9781844074624
Publication Date: January 2008
192 pages; 234 x 156mm; Figures, tables, index

• Build more roads and congestion goes up, not down; improve engine efficiency and people drive more, increasing (as opposed to decreasing) emissions - these are examples of Jevons' Paradox, and clearly illustrate its importance in modern debates around resource use
• From an international team of researchers, this is the first book to tackle the issues head-on - with special focus on the case of oil usage
• Will be an essential addition to any economics, energy or resource management departmental bookshelf

'Jevons' Paradox', which was first expressed in 1865 by William Stanley Jevons in relation to use of coal, states that an increase in efficiency in using a resource leads to increased use of that resource rather than to a reduction. This has subsequently been proved to apply not just to fossil fuels, but other resource use scenarios. For example, doubling the efficiency of food production per hectare over the last 50 years (due to the Green Revolution) did not solve the problem of hunger. The increase in efficiency increased production and worsened hunger because of the resulting increase in population. The implications of this in today's world are substantial. Many scientists and policy makers argue that future technological innovations will reduce consumption of resources; Jevons' Paradox explains why this may be a false hope.

This is the first book to provide a historical overview of Jevons' Paradox, provide evidence for its existence and apply it to complex systems. Written and edited by world experts in the fields of economics, technology and the environment, it explains the myth of efficiency and explores its implications for resource usage (particularly oil). It is a must-read for policy makers, natural resource managers, academics and students concerned with the effects of efficiency on resource use.

John M. Polimeni is assistant professor of economics at Albany College of Pharmacy, US. Mario Giampietro is senior researcher and director of the Unit of Technological Assessment and Food Technology at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), Rome, Italy. Kozo Mayumi is full professor at Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, the University of Tokushima, Japan. Blake Alcott is currently reading for an MPhil in environmental policy at the Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.

Contents
Foreword * Historical Overview of Jevons' Paradox in Literature * Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Efficiency * Jevons' Paradox and the Evolution of Complex Adaptive Systems * Empirical Evidence of Jevons' Paradox * Bibliography, Index

Earthscan has a bunch of books on energy issues. They are usually expensive -- get them from a library .

[Tanada]

It would be nice if our library would stock it, but as a foreign title with an expensive cover price that is not a high probabillity. If you buy it and then put it on Abebooks.com or halfprice.com or some such after you read it I might get to purchase it for a discount (hint hint)

[MonteQuest]

As we learned from this thread, Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation Jevons Paradox is not an argument against conservation or efficiency gains, it is a wakeup call to the reality of the expected results.

The unexpected results being that all observed efficiency gains to date have led to increased consumption.

How do we counter this?

Taxes lead to greater efficiency.

So does rationing.

How does one avoid the "rebound effect"?

Seems that all gains must be directed at reducing efficiency????? LOL!

So, what is left?

Taking all gains out of the market and using them to transition to a sustainable system, irrespective of economics?

Think this one through before you respond.

[MacG]

Shooting from the hip here: Look at the examples. We have some resource stripped areas of this world where Jevon's Paradox have run rampant for at leat some fivehundred years. Just look at the Arab world and the 'stans. Add China and India prior to 1980. More and more people crammed tighter and tighter. They found ways to cope. Not very nice. But they seem to have preferred 'not very nice' over 'death'. Life seem to be a precious thing, and most people seem to sacrifice just about everything to stay in Life. I don't object - apply to me too.

[thuja]

Monte- is this a trick question? It is seemingly impossible to offset the Paradox in a "free market". Truly- only global ratification of binding international agreements to simultaneously reduce consumption levels is the only way one could overcome the Paradox and truly "powerdown". All other efforts- in situ- will likely lead to greater consumption levels...is this what you are driving at?

[Madpaddy]

Thuja,

I think you have it bang on.

We are entering the era of declining overall available energy.

Therefore the only increases in productivity must be through more efficient use of energy.

Any increased productivity must be channelled into sustainable development.

This can only be done with binding international agreements.

[aflurry]

As we learned from this thread, Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation Jevons Paradox is not an argument against conservation or efficiency gains, it is a wakeup call to the reality of the expected results.

OK, I am probably missing something here, but it seems like that title "Death by conservation" is a misstatement. it should be "Death by efficiency without regard for conservation." Jevon's observation states that efficiency gains don't lead to conservation. Because the usage base expands to meet the greater availability, efficiency gains lead seemingly paradoxically (though actually not-paradoxically) to more fuel usage.

The thing is that conservation would begin by restricting the usage base directly. It does not necessarily mean greater efficiency within that usage base.

This important distinction between conservation and efficiency often goes overlooked. It is only by doing so that people regard Jevons Paradox as this inescapable doom law.

The Jevons scenario in fact says nothing about the effectiveness of conservation.

The unexpected results being that all observed efficiency gains to date have led to increased consumption.

I think there have probably been many observable efficiency gains, but very few genuine conservation gains. We have yet to know the effect of a genuine, sustained conservation effort.

How do we counter this?

Taxes lead to greater efficiency.

So does rationing.

How does one avoid the "rebound effect"?

OK, the tax argument is a possible basis for the "conservation leads to efficiency which leads to a rising usage base" argument. Though I don't find it all that strong... at most it may prove that by conservation efforts may leave you running in place because of the effect on prices. It doesn't show an increase in usage because as soon as you get back to the break-even point prices are back up to where they were.

But in any case, it's only half an argument. It neglects to discuss that the tax revenue needs to be put toward conservation initiative and public transportation. So even if you just broke even on taxation alone, you get gains on the conservation projects.

I don't understand the rationing argument. It may lead to greater efficiency but the efficiency can't increase consumption because consumption is rationed, remember? The only question is whther rationing would work. That is doubtful but it is a whole different issue.

Seems that all gains must be directed at reducing efficiency????? LOL!

That's funny but it has a kernal of truth, and as usual "the market" is the sticky wicket.... The market is very good at pricing most thing, but it completely fails with natural resources that are at the same time abundant and irreplaceable. The market sees the abundance but not the irreplaceability. Because of this, a case can be made that the market prices oil far far far too low.

This is still a very tough problem. I don't think you can just "not have" the free market. The free market exists, whether it is legitimized or not, and controlling it always seems to have consequences that are difficult to predict.

But however difficult it is, the problem of effectively pricing all the externalities of oil consumption (including even peak oil) into the per bbl price is a huge step down from fighting this so-called paradox of the "Death by conservation."

[MonteQuest]

This important distinction between conservation and efficiency often goes overlooked. It is only by doing so that people regard Jevons Paradox as this inescapable doom law.

Again, Jevons' Paradox is not a law, it is a consistent observation of reality.

Both efficiency gains and conservation lead to greater supply, which lowers the price, thus increasing consumption.

The topic is not a debate of Jevons, but how to overcome the paradox.

I think there have probably been many observable efficiency gains, but very few genuine conservation gains. We have yet to know the effect of a genuine, sustained conservation effort.

Sure we do. We called it the Great Depression.

I don't understand the rationing argument. It may lead to greater efficiency but the efficiency can't increase consumption because consumption is rationed, remember?

Still, it would lower the price relative to what it would have been undoing any demand destruction that higher prices caused.

If gasoline were rationed, people would find new ways to use it more efficiently...doing more with less. Trying to grow.

We need to do the opposite.

We need to do less while having more.

[MonteQuest]

Monte- is this a trick question? It is seemingly impossible to offset the Paradox in a "free market". Truly- only global ratification of binding international agreements to simultaneously reduce consumption levels is the only way one could overcome the Paradox and truly "powerdown". All other efforts- in situ- will likely lead to greater consumption levels...is this what you are driving at?

Not really. But, yes, how do we make China and India not consume what we conserve?

I guess my point is that...what if all gains from conservation and efficiency went to further both, rather than meeting demand?

The Green Revolution didn't solve the issue of world famine, it allowed for more growth.

[Ludi]

It seems to me the answer is what the Puritans won't want to hear - we need an incredibly lazy, inefficient way of life, in which we produce virtually nothing beyond our needs for survival, and produce those in a way which doesn't require much, if any, non-living (human, animal, or plant) energy. This is so counter to our society, our culture, our historical values, as to be anathema to many, possibly most, people.