[MonteQuest]

Necessary ramification: And therefore, any PO-driven component of the great 21st Century Dieoff will be essentially economic in nature.

Keep in mind that in famines past, people did not die because there was not enough FOOD. They died because there was not enough MONEY to PAY FOR the food.

People will not die from lack of energy, they will die from lack of money with which to pay for the things that are produced with the energy.

Precisely, we see it starting with reports of Vietnam fishermen unable to afford the diesel for their boats to go check the fish in their traps. Or people in Niger unable to afford the food on the shelves.

This will domino up the chain of affluence.

Efficiency gains and conservation will lower the price relative to what it would have been, increasing consumption as access is re-attained.

[Aaron]

They're addicted to the game, like the drunken monkeys in the Buddhist parables about addiction to illusion (maya).

Well put...

[Pixie]

In the case of peak oil, supply is going to dictate the quantity used, not efficiency or demand. Demand will go down as the price goes up. The price will go up more the less efficiently we can use the fuel. The purpose of efficiency in this case is to keep the price low, so that our collapse is slightly more controlled, and we have more time to adapt.

In other words: buy a hummer if you want to bring about a quick, decisive collapse, a prius if you want to bring about a slow agonizing slide, and a bicycle if you want to go to permaculture paradise.

[Pixie]

All this talk about energy use in the 80's is missing a critical fact. When the price of oil was high, because OPEC was holding back production, oil use went down in the USA and the rest of the world. In the late 80's, OPEC expanded production back up to the historic curve. That's when we started driving again, and when we started buying inefficient vehicles, and repealed the speed limit and all the other conservation laws.

I guess I am supporting Aaron's point: energy use in the modern world is ultimately determined by supply, pure and simple.

What we DON'T see, though, is energy use go up when efficiency increases. It just doesn't go down much, if at all.

[MonteQuest]

What we DON'T see, though, is energy use go up when efficiency increases. It just doesn't go down much, if at all.

I guess you didn't read this thread then. I posted several graphs with data to show that efficiency gains resulted in increased use, not less.

[Pixie]

What we DON'T see, though, is energy use go up when efficiency increases. It just doesn't go down much, if at all.

I guess you didn't read this thread then. I posted several graphs with data to show that efficiency gains resulted in increased use, not less.

Guilty. I posted before I had read the entire thread from beginning to end. But now yare ou telling me that increased efficiency was the causitive factor in an increase in crude oil burned--as opposed to increased supply from the Saudis, increased supply from the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay, and the resulting price crash? Because the industry history I have seen clearly shows a massive decrease in crude oil produced and used throughout the late 70's and early 80's. That was when we became more efficient, because we had high prices and wanted to keep our costs down. And that reduction did not rebound until the late 90's, when prices crashed, due to an increase in supply. Since the late 90's, we haven't made any efficiency increases. Our efficiency has gone down. Again, supply and price caused that. Now, we have new economies increasing their use of crude oil, so while I haven't looked at everything you have posted, I find it hard to believe you have factored out all the other causes of that increase to draw the conclusion that increased efficiency leads to increased resource use.

[ClubOfRomeII]

But now yare ou telling me that increased efficiency was the causitive factor in an increase in crude oil burned--as opposed to increased supply from the Saudis, increased supply from the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay, and the resulting price crash? Because the industry history I have seen clearly shows a massive decrease in crude oil produced and used throughout the late 70's and early 80's.

Oh Pixie, you's about to get some 'splainin headed your way!

Yes, crude use crashed so hard during the 70's and 80's that it doesn't even look right to the people who do the Hubbert linearization models, and they are always dropping these little pointers into their graphs so they don't have to account for how economics gets all rolled up in something as simple as worldwide crude production rates.

Lots of fuel switching was going on back then, which is more of a "efficient use of the crude" point rather than a "everything got more efficient so we used less" point. So we used less because everyone who could, switched, not because massive efficiencies came down the pike and saved us. Although massive efficiencies did come down the pike, just not all of them stuck around. Like the 55mph speed limit and ever increasing CAFE standards rather than ever decreasing ones.

If you go back and read through the thread, and can separate out the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" distractions, what appeared to me when I did this exercise, was that CARS are the problem, particularly cars used by AMERICANS, and if we weren't such weenie, random cruising, SUV driving nitwits, that alot of the current supply=demand problem wouldn't even be an issue.

With enough of a production cushion, OPEC doesn't produce flat out, if OPEC doesn't produce flatout, they have to negotiate as to who gets how much of the available pie, if they negotiate, they are forced to sell at reduced rates to keep the price up so they can support their government spending. Kind of a "for the common good" arguement among the members of the Cartel.

While Jevons paradox gets mixed around into this mess somewhere, it isn't the exact reason why everything happens, it is only a part of the overall mix, a part which basically says conservation won't decrease demand by as much as is conserved.

Its all great fun though. Just watch the changeup between crude oil and energy, that one gets pitched as though they are the same.

Scooters for everyone!

[Aaron]

late 70's and early 80's. That was when we became more efficient, because we had high prices and wanted to keep our costs down.

No

Demand was destroyed for a decade & 1/2 after the embargo.

That was the primary cause of decreased oil consumption during this period, not efficiency or conservation.

And it proves Jevon's argument nicely.

The resulting efficiency gains you mention, simply made it possible for more people, to consume more oil than was otherwise possible in the following decades.

Couple of decades later... Wa La! A brand new Chinese & Indian middle class has sucked up all available extra energy.

The preferred method for extinguishing a gas fire does not include dumping more gas on it.

[Pixie]

With enough of a production cushion, OPEC doesn't produce flat out, if OPEC doesn't produce flatout, they have to negotiate as to who gets how much of the available pie, if they negotiate, they are forced to sell at reduced rates to keep the price up so they can support their government spending. Kind of a "for the common good" arguement among the members of the Cartel.

While Jevons paradox gets mixed around into this mess somewhere, it isn't the exact reason why everything happens, it is only a part of the overall mix, a part which basically says conservation won't decrease demand by as much as is conserved.
!

Absolutely agreed: Price goes up. Efficiency creates demand destruction. Price goes down--people drive more and buy bigger cars and stop carpooling, etc. Neither the price nor the demand change as much as you would expect. This is macroeconomic theory that even I am familiar with. I thought someone was arguing that we were actually burning MORE total oil wordwide because the CAFE standards had increased mpg.

Jevon's Paradox makes me think of the Honda Accord Hybrid. Let's not save any gas. Let's just use the added efficiency to make the engine bigger. YAY! I wish I could take an accord hybrid back in time to the 1970's and street race it. "My granma's honda can blow away your noisy, stinky firebird, punk! "

[ClubOfRomeII]

Jevon's Paradox makes me think of the Honda Accord Hybrid. Let's not save any gas. Let's just use the added efficiency to make the engine bigger. YAY! I wish I could take an accord hybrid back in time to the 1970's and street race it. "My granma's honda can blow away your noisy, stinky firebird, punk! "

My beef with Jevons paradox is mostly because it seems strange to use. It has since been quantified into something called the Rebound effect, which as best I can tell means you can quantify, for a 10% efficiency savings, how much of the 10% you actually WON'T get. Jevons came up with the original idea, but it has since been refined, and is now better understood. So why use the older, non improved version? I can think of reasons of course, but won't speculate on the matter.

The implication in the rebound effect is that Jevons overdid it, because ALL conservation units don't necessarily disappear back into increased demand, only a portion. This means that the full bore "as Jevons thunk about it" paradox could happen, but the studies I've seen run 10%-50% for a whole band of efficiencies on stuff. Jevons idea would have that band pinned at 100%. Or higher.

[Aaron]

The so called "rebound effect" is a supposed refinement applied to smaller slices of time & market to predict efficiency feedback.

All one needs to validate Jevon, is to look at the energy consumption graph over the last 100 years.

It's quite clear at this point, that despite any efficiency gains or conservation programs, our actual energy use has sky-rocketed.

If that's not Jevon's Paradox, then it's a very well concealed mechanism... with the exact same effect.

[MonteQuest]

But now yare ou telling me that increased efficiency was the causitive factor in an increase in crude oil burned--as opposed to increased supply from the Saudis, increased supply from the North Sea and Prudhoe Bay, and the resulting price crash?

Didn't say that. I said I posted several graphs with data to show that efficiency gains resulted in increased use, not less. Look at the data graphs and look at what was compared.

[MonteQuest]

The so called "rebound effect" is a supposed refinement applied to smaller slices of time & market to predict efficiency feedback.

All one needs to validate Jevon, is to look at the energy consumption graph over the last 100 years.

It's quite clear at this point, that despite any efficiency gains or conservation programs, our actual energy use has sky-rocketed.

If that's not Jevon's Paradox, then it's a very well concealed mechanism... with the exact same effect.

And as noted previously, it was not due to population growth as use skyrocketed over 100% beyond population growth.

[ClubOfRomeII]

And as noted previously, it was not due to population growth as use skyrocketed over 100% beyond population growth.

Then why does Duncans energy graph remain flat, per capita, from 1979 to when he wrote his Gorge paper?

Seems like if you take population into account, what that is saying is energy use is flat when taking population growth into account? Which means we AREN'T using 100% more energy beyond population growth? Has Duncans slide into the Gorge reversed since he wrote the paper?

[dinopello]

In some sense, Jevons is interesting, but maybe you can tell me how (if) it applys to this statement.

We have purposefuly constructed a society that requires a fair amount of *work* (force over distance) to be performed in order to conduct our daily lives (e.g. moving long distance to get to work every day). No matter how *efficient* (work returned for energy input) you make that work, in the end it will be a losing proposition to continue making simple acts needed for survival *require* this amount of *work*.

The most you can hope for is that efficiency buys more time before you run out of energy to apply to that work. Jevons, however implies that even this isn't the case as the efficiency leads to changes that increase even more the work that is performed/required and then when the party is over the hangover will be that much worse.

So, for example, moving close to where you work is fundamentally different (and "better") than getting a more efficient conveyance.

[MonteQuest]

And as noted previously, it was not due to population growth as use skyrocketed over 100% beyond population growth.

Then why does Duncans energy graph remain flat, per capita, from 1979 to when he wrote his Gorge paper?

Seems like if you take population into account, what that is saying is energy use is flat when taking population growth into account? Which means we AREN'T using 100% more energy beyond population growth? Has Duncans slide into the Gorge reversed since he wrote the paper?

As noted previously...vehicle miles versus population.

[DigitalCubano]

You folks know there's a pretty large difference between correlation and causality, right? VMT went up while gas prices dropped. Great. If you don't go any further, then you've established a positive correlation. If you want to prove causality then you have to go further. In the process you have to demonstrate the degree to which cheaper gas prices resulted in increased VMT. That particular dynamic, regardless of magnitude, is Jevon's Paradox. I think it's safe to write that we are all in agreement to this point.

The point of contention seems to be the presence and magnitude of the other dynamics. I contend that the VMT response to cheaper gas prices was small relative to other dynamics. For example, the desire to flee crowded, blighted urban areas. There are others of which I am privy. If I haven't already fleshed those out on this thread long ago, I will gladly do so upon request.

COR, I believe I once posted several papers from the System Dynamics literature on topics ranging from conservation dynamics to automobile diffusion dynamics. I have to search for them, but know that this is probably the field you want to scour for actual quantitative analyses on conservation and efficiency dynamics and responses.

[rwwff]

Its not so important that Jerdon's Doohicky causes something, as it is to show that it permits it. New uses become possible when the price goes down. The selection of the new use causes the consumption of that previously conserved quantity; but the paradox permitted it to be that way.

[ClubOfRomeII]

As noted previously...vehicle miles versus population.

See, here I was thinking we were back to talking energy, not just vehicles and miles and stuff.

Americans weird fasination with cars is some sort of freak, crude hog example, Duncan was doing energy, and for the planet, and per capita, and we've been doing pretty good in that arena.

[dinopello]

Its not so important that Jerdon's Doohicky causes something, as it is to show that it permits it. New uses become possible when the price goes down. The selection of the new use causes the consumption of that previously conserved quantity; but the paradox permitted it to be that way.

Yes. There were numerous enablers and accelerants such as HUGE subsidies in road construction, federal loans that applied to new construction and not to rennovation and the marketing etc. and of course the fact that it was during the time of increasing energy availability