[DigitalCubano]

Sorry DC but apparently your understanding of what's being said is flawed.

What irony. Ah, like so:

It appears that at least some people seem to think that Jevons is being held out as a theory or hypothesis that somehow explains why conservation is a waste of time.

Perhaps. But if you actually spent some time trying to understand what I wrote before you authored this knee-jerk post, then you would be more careful not to lump me into said group. Certainly, you would have avoided the dog & pony show comprised of harping on the definition of a hypothesis (BTW, I want those 30 seconds of my life back, thanks).

The hypothesis to which I refer is that conservation/increased efficiency are useless in the face of the Peak Oil pickle. Certain people base this hypothesis partly on intuition derived from JP (Jevon's Paradox). So far, I dig. Where I start having problems is when certain people point to the VMT trend as proof positive that JP was the primary dynamic and that it goes on to prove said hypothesis. No, it doesn't. There are other dynamics in the VMT case that are being ignored, I suspect on purpose to buttress said hypothesis. As it stands, I see correlation, not causation. IOW, nothing that can be used in the validation of the hypothesis.

he merely reported the fact of the observed phenomenon that increased efficiency resulted in increased overall consumption. Neither a theory nor hypothesis; an observation of what happens.

Please re-read my numerous posts. You are missing the point I've been making by quite a margin...

I really don't think that anyone here believes that conservation is a bad idea.

You obviously haven't spent much time around these forums. Oh yes, my friend: there are folks on here who think conservation is a bad idea in that it will make the inevitable overshoot & collapse even worse.

The point that is being made is that conservation is not a solution, in and of itself, to dwindling energy supplies, because the evidence of history indicates that increased efficiency leads (as Jevons rightly observed) to increased overall consumption, even tho' in the short term it may reduce it.

Such broad generalizations! If that were so, wouldn't we be arguing about Jevon's <i>Law</i>? We aren't. Because it isn't the repeatable, readily observable phenomenon that the armchair scientists on here would have you believe. The VMT case is a perfect example...one that I have argued over and over on these forums. Of course, the fatalism of JP fits so neatly into the PO meme that its irresistable to many.

[Aaron]

You obviously haven't spent much time around these forums. Oh yes, my friend: there are folks on here who think conservation is a bad idea in that it will make the inevitable overshoot & collapse even worse.

I am one such...

Absent some mitigating factor, all mankind has received thus far from better technology & conservation efforts is greater energy use.

It's fair to observe this is not causitive. But it's also a fairly strong correlation I think.

Either way though, nobody can deny the exponential increases in energy consumption for over 150 years +. So at the other end of this argument we conjecture that energy use increased despite technology & conservation activities.

Not because of it.

Without looking at some of Jevon's extended deductions based on JP, it's pretty intuitive to posit that prople tend to consume what they can afford.

Not sure about your VMT argument... do tell.

[MonteQuest]

You obviously haven't spent much time around these forums. Oh yes, my friend: there are folks on here who think conservation is a bad idea in that it will make the inevitable overshoot & collapse even worse.

I am one such....

And I, another.

If you are living beyond your means, deep in debt, with declining wages, do you take out another loan to perpetuate your financial irresponsibility and reckless consumption?

Some do.

Stand by for bankruptcy.

Of course, we could scrap our economic system and toss the free market supply/demand mechanism.

But baring that, unless you find a way to prevent conservation and efficiency from putting things on sale, consumption will increase.

Price rises, taxes, rationing/restricted per capita consumption comes to mind.

[MrBill]

MrBill,

I believe you are talking about something else.
No one is saying Cuba is energy independent, much less fossil fuel independent.

No, but my point is that far from being self-sufficient and an economic model for any other country, Cuba has been mainly propped-up and kept from dying by external sponsors like Russia, China and now VZL. However, this model does not travel. After PO in the USA there is no one who is going to bail-out Uncle Sam and keep the country running. Therefore, a Cuba is the wrong template to look at for a base case scenario.

[nth]

No, but my point is that far from being self-sufficient and an economic model for any other country, Cuba has been mainly propped-up and kept from dying by external sponsors like Russia, China and now VZL. However, this model does not travel. After PO in the USA there is no one who is going to bail-out Uncle Sam and keep the country running. Therefore, a Cuba is the wrong template to look at for a base case scenario.

I agree that Cuba gets subsidized fuel from Soviet Union which became Russia and then VZL and China.
I thought we were talking about their aggie policies.
*shrugs*
If we are talking about the whole state of Cuba, then that is something else.

[rwwff]

Granted, I don't think there is a REAL example to use for US adaptation; however, Armenia might be a bit more relevant, just from what I was reading in the CIA factbook last night.

We'll always have more oil per person than they do; but it is an example of a country with skills, suffering some energy difficulties, yet managing to cobble together something that vaguely looks like an economy.

[emersonbiggins]

Commuters Facing Longer, Lonelier Rides

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More and more commuters are leaving home earlier, traveling farther and driving alone, says an analysis of commuting trends reported Monday.

The "Commuting in America" study by the Transportation Research Board also found that more commuters are traveling from suburb to suburb - rather than the traditional commute from suburb to city.

...

According to the latest analysis, the number of new solo drivers grew by almost 13 million from 1990 to 2000. The number of workers with commutes lasting more than 60 minutes grew by almost 50 percent over that period. And, compared with the previous decade, more Americans are leaving for work between 5 a.m. and 6:30 a.m.

[link to article]

[AgentR]

In the 1990-2000 time frame we were just entering the housing bubble and the drive till you qualify phenomenon, and all with very cheap gas.

OTOH, today I watched a news story on TV (rare) that indicated people were starting to return their eyes to the lure of SUV's just because of this current brief drop in price.

This indicates to me that $3 a gallon is no where near high enough to interfere with people's preferences about commuting.

[emersonbiggins]

Frankly, I was surprised that this study didn't include any data more recent than raw census data gathered over six years ago. As you said, given that the real estate boom didn't really "take off" until after the dot-com bust circa 2001, these figures could easily have doubled since then. The reaction towards $2+ gas is probably little more than a blurp on the graph of increasing commute times.

[NEOPO]

Damn it agentR stop sounding so sensible and stop saying things that I agree with!!!

Yeah good stuff EB.
"Oh joy (insert technocon fix here).... we are saved!"

[kjmclark]

It's not your imagination. Demand for Gasoline has become less elastic since the 70s/80s:

Evidence of a Shift in the Short-Run Elasticity of Gasoline Demand

Understanding the sensitivity of gasoline demand to changes in prices and income has important implications for policies related to climate change, optimal taxation and national security, to name only a few. While the short-run price and income elasticities of gasoline demand in the United States have been studied extensively, the vast majority of these studies focus on consumer behavior in the 1970s and 1980s. There are a number of reasons to believe that current demand elasticities differ from these previous periods, as transportation analysts have hypothesized that behavioral and structural factors over the past several decades have changed the responsiveness of U.S. consumers to changes in gasoline prices. In this paper, we compare the price and income elasticities of gasoline demand in two periods of similarly high prices from 1975 to 1980 and 2001 to 2006. The short-run price elasticities differ considerably: and range from -0.034 to -0.077 during 2001 to 2006, versus -0.21 to -0.34 for 1975 to 1980. The estimated short-run income elasticities range from 0.21 to 0.75 and when estimated with the same models are not significantly different between the two periods.

In plain English, Americans aren't as sensitive to gas price changes as they were in the past. Put a better way, they are less likely to use less gas if the price goes up as they were in the past.

[JustinFrankl]

After decades of moving into suburbia, of relying on the car for just about everything, when gas prices go up, few choices remain beside biting the bullet and paying.

[Concerned]

MrBill,

I believe you are talking about something else.
No one is saying Cuba is energy independent, much less fossil fuel independent.

No, but my point is that far from being self-sufficient and an economic model for any other country, Cuba has been mainly propped-up and kept from dying by external sponsors like Russia, China and now VZL. However, this model does not travel. After PO in the USA there is no one who is going to bail-out Uncle Sam and keep the country running. Therefore, a Cuba is the wrong template to look at for a base case scenario.

After the collapse of the FSU Cuba had to make alot of painful adjustments to a life with far less oil.

I don't think anyone could argue that Cuba receives anywhere near the level of oil and sponsorship from China or Venezuala than what they obtained from the FSU.

The bottom line for optimists is that a nation's access to "cheap oil" was severly curtailed and they were able to effect some sort of transistion to a lower energy life style.

[MonteQuest]

Here is great piece from a poster over at the oildrum. He was responding to my criticism of Robert Rapiers take on conservation and Jevon's Pardox. Here is Rapier's piece

http://www.energybulletin.net/25102.html

Sparaxis reply is buried in a oildrum thread there http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2199#more

So I will quote it here.

I agree. The "Jevon's Paradox" line was a throwaway. I've never seen it used as an excuse not to conserve...perhaps a rationale for those who wouldn't conserve in any case, but that's a different matter.

At the same time, the potential for savings from efficiency are highly overstated, but not from the strict sense of Jevon's paradox.
This is due to the fact that people don't save energy...they save money. Not a kW nor joule of any energy has ever gone into a person's pocket. What they see is dollars, euros or yuan.
There are three main offsets to efficiency.

First is the direct rebound effect. When you can have a light on for the cost of 13W (CFL) instead of 60W (incandescent), you might use it more...perhaps not turn it it off when you leave the room. Your monetary savings are somewhat reduced and kWh usage raised. We've seen this in a very big way with car efficiency gains, which have been more than offset by higher VMT. On the other hand, this has not been a factor with refrigerator efficiency gains of over 50% since 1983. Since they already run 24/7, there's no additional use possible (unless you want to leave the door open for some reason).

Second is the indirect rebound effect. This refers to the offset of your energy savings from efficiency by the use of the monetary savings for other consumption. Say you save $20/month on your electricity bill from your new efficient refrigerator, but spend this on Starbucks, or another tank of gas or a few books. Each of these items require energy that would not have otherwise been demanded, and offset your savings to various degrees. Further, your purchase is someone else's income, so there is the multiplier effect in action.

The third is the general equilibrium effect. This is most powerful. This refers to the economic impact of having your monetary savings recycled through our fractional reserve banking system. Say a factory has an audit and replaces a series of inefficient equipment with more efficient ones and saves $10,000/month in energy costs. This $10,000, as savings or a bank deposit, form the basis of up to $90,000 (on average) of new money (in the form of credit with interest obligations) in the larger economy. This, of course, requires some kind of growth in order to generate the profit to pay off the principal and interest. The additonal energy demanded for this new economic activity can swamp your savings.

Why don't we see this? Because the boundaries of energy efficiency measurements are drawn very narrowly. When US DOE does its savings estimates of new appliance standards, it draws the boundary around the single piece of equipment itself. Direct rebound effects are sometimes mentioned, but the indirect and general equilibrium effects are completely ignored. Do you ever wonder why, when you see all these claimed savings of TWhs or GJ why total energy consumption just keeps rising?
There's only a few ways to offset this. One would be to tax away the monetary gains from efficiency and sterilize the money. Second, and important in our context here, is that these effects don't accrue when efficiency is used to offset the rising price of energy. Personally, I have not saved a penny from installing an efficient gas water heater 2 years ago because gas prices have risen faster than the increase in efficiency, but I have foregone spending more. And third, the savings can be tapped away to recycle into natural capital formation (soil, air, water), but we simply don't have a mechanism to do this.

So don't completely dismiss the impacts of Jevon's Paradox in the broad sense because of its common misuse in the strict sense. Unless the monetary savings from energy conservation don't return to the economy, we are fooling ourselves to think that these measures can have a significant impact over the long term.

[thuja]

MQ and Aaron-

I thoroughly understand that local conservation efforts will not reduce overall energy consumption levels due to creating more supply and thereby making it cheaper. This in turn allows other communities to buy the cheaper supply, thus erasing any conservation efforts.

Thus, any solution in part fails to become a solution in whole.

But on the other hand...any lack of solution in whole does not mean there can not be a solution in part.

Communities devoted to needing less fossil fuel energy and to becoming minimally consumptive and sustainable (permaculture farming for example) will be best prepared for a low carbon future. Extracating oneself as much from the fossil fuel supply and demand cycle is a paramount post-peak survival strategy.

Will it make a difference in the long run? Perhaps not. Overconsumption and overshoot have led to factors out of our control (Global Warming) and may eventually cause a near extinction event.

But I question you two- what is the alternative? Keep on trucking, consume as much as you want, buy a couple Hummers, settle down in Houston (as Aaron suggests) and wait for your inevitable overshoot related death?

Even if we do all die, I'd prefer to do it in a way that sought balance and harmony instead of embracing the greed and rape culture that has brought us to the brink of doom.

[MonteQuest]

But I question you two- what is the alternative?

I have been explaining this from the start.

The monetary savings from energy conservation CANNOT return to the economy.

We must counter the paradox and stop the resultant increase in consumption by raising the price, through taxation, or by restricted per capita consumption.

Entails a complete overhaul of how we operate.

A paradigm shift in our thoughts about growth and quality of life.

A powerdown equitably shared by all.

And a population reduction.

Not likely, you say?

We know, that's why Aaron and I keep saying is all about how the monkeys react to peakoil.

And why we expect the worse.

[MonteQuest]

But on the other hand...any lack of solution in whole does not mean there can not be a solution in part.

Peak oil is a global problem.

[thuja]

I have been explaining this from the start.

The monetary savings from energy conservation CANNOT return to the economy.

We must counter the paradox and stop the resultant increase in consumption by raising the price, through taxation, or by restricted per capita consumption.

Entails a complete overhaul of how we operate.

A paradigm shift in our thoughts about growth and quality of life.

A powerdown equitably shared by all.

Great- I am all for it MQ- all for taxation to reduce consumption. That is a smart concept that hopefully will be applied globally.

But you continue to exclude local responses and individual efforts for conservation. You use Jevon's paradox to justify your belief that local conservation is a waste of time. If you mean that local conservation will not solve the world's energy problems, then I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you mean to say that conservation has no personal or community based impact whatsoever, I entirely disagree.

Here are a number of reasons why you are completely wrong.

1- Individual conservation has an individual economic impact. Lowering the thermostat, driving less, growing your own food, etc., all means you don't need to earn as much money. That means you don't have to work as much, or you are better prepared for higher prices because you have lowered your consumption levels.

2- Local conservation in the form of towns and cities allows groups of people to plan for a different future of less fossil fuels. Urban density, protecting local arable land, buidling bike paths, tax breaks for mass transit, etc. , all allow the local populace to live with less need for fossil fuels. When prices skyrocket, communities that require less will fair better.

3- International efforts must occur in conjunction with local efforts. A tax on gas, while worthwhile, is simply one idea. Myriad local changes need to take place that cannot be legislated from a federal or international level. Every bioregion is different and will need different responses to the crisis.

4- The alternative is crazy. If you say conservation is a waste of time, then your logic essentially is telling people that they might as well be wasteful and excessively consumptive. Um, isn't that what got us in this mess? Please please please answer this point. If you don't I will find anything else you say disingenuous.


Like I said, I am no optimist. I thoroughly believe that a die-off of some proportions is likely. This leads me to the 5th reason why local and individual conservation efforts are smart.

5- Even if we all die trying, we will at least have made efforts towards bringing balance, towards living within our means.

MQ and Aaron, I agree with you guys on a lot of things but on this issue you are way off base.

[MonteQuest]

But you continue to exclude local responses and individual efforts for conservation. You use Jevon's paradox to justify your belief that local conservation is a waste of time.

I have never said it is a waste of time. I said we must counter the consequences or it is.

If you mean to say that conservation has no personal or community based impact whatsoever, I entirely disagree.

I'v e never said that either. But what are we trying to solve?

The impact of peak oil? Or your personal issues?

Ever read Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons?

It's time you did.

When prices skyrocket, communities that require less will fair better.

Communities that require less will have fewer jobs.

If you say conservation is a waste of time, then your logic essentially is telling people that they might as well be wasteful and excessively consumptive. Um, isn't that what got us in this mess? Please please please answer this point. If you don't I will find anything else you say disingenuous.

I have never said anything of the sort. I have said we need to counter the consequences that increased efficiency and conservation efforts bring with them. No where, at any time, have I suggested we just consume on.
Asked and aswered ad naseum.

MQ and Aaron, I agree with you guys on a lot of things but on this issue you are way off base.

I'm sorry you just can't get a grasp of the issue.

[MonteQuest]

Individual conservation has an individual economic impact. Lowering the thermostat, driving less, growing your own food, etc., all means you don't need to earn as much money. That means you don't have to work as much, or you are better prepared for higher prices because you have lowered your consumption levels.

Sure does. If enough people do it, everyone will be out of a job.