[bart]

One problem with discussing Jevons Paradox is that we seem to want black & white answers. Either it is an eternal law or utterly incorrect.

According the the academic reports I've read and cited elsewhere, there have been few empirical studies of the Rebound Effect (the formal name for the Jevons Paradox). In those that have been published, the figures are variable (e.g. 20-70%) and the conclusions hedged with cautions.

The truth is that it is one tendency among many. Mr. Bill's economic analysis gives an interesting spin I hadn't thought of.

I agree with MQ's point that "conservation and capitalism are like oil and water, they do not mix," though I think I'd specify "uncontrolled capitalism built on rampant consumerism". I would guess the real answer will involve a combination of government control, culture change and markets.

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gary_malcolm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'J')evons Paradox is irrelevant. It does not apply to shrinking resources. If you have 100 gallons of oil today and every day after that you will get 10% less gallons of oil, it will force you to conserve.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '
')
It would be far better if the US car fleet does not improve in MPG and having that fleet die with the American motoring way of life. We need some forms of inefficiency to force more worthwhile systemic energy efficiency.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '
')Absolutely, PO sooner is better for humanity than a later PO date. The longer & higher we go up energy mountain the further and harder we have to come down. The best case would be to have oil peak not at the Hubert half of URR but much sooner. That situation would provide the signal to society to stop wasting oil (on cars mostly) while giving a lower rate of decline to invest in post petrol systems. The cornucopian promise that PO will be later would mean the transition will be much more difficult if true.

I hope oil is peaking right now. We need this crisis.

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', 'A')bsolutely, PO sooner is better for humanity than a later PO date. The longer & higher we go up energy mountain the further and harder we have to come down. The best case would be to have oil peak not at the Hubert half of URR but much sooner. That situation would provide the signal to society to stop wasting oil (on cars mostly) while giving a lower rate of decline to invest in post petrol systems. The cornucopian promise that PO will be later would mean the transition will be much more difficult if true.

I hope oil is peaking right now. We need this crisis.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')
So the flip side of Jevon Paradox may be that as crude or coal are depleted their rising price and scarcity make other sources of energy more competitive, if the alternative is draught power for example. Even if it means reorganizing the means of production, through relocation for example.

[nth]

I do agree about the higher the harder we crash.
I think a long plateau would be the best. In that case, I am on the same boat. The sooner we peak and plateau is the best.

I was imagining a peak with an accelerated drop as most models I have seen here.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dub_scratch', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')
So the flip side of Jevon Paradox may be that as crude or coal are depleted their rising price and scarcity make other sources of energy more competitive, if the alternative is draught power for example. Even if it means reorganizing the means of production, through relocation for example.

[tsakach]

Compare Jevons Paradox with Parkisons Law, where:

"The demand upon a resource always expands to match the supply of the resource."

Parkisons Law seems to be more applicable where supply can not be increased. As an example, suppose you have a solar power system where a limit exists on production of electricity. In this case increased efficiency does not result in increased consumption, because you can't consume more energy than you have. A tendency exists to consume all the available energy, and conservation enables you to do more with what you have.

Jevons Paradox may occur when favorable supply conditions exist, such as the up side of the production curve. But it does not seem to apply when supply is contracting:

"Starting with a significant reduction in supply however (as in the case of Peak Oil), prices will go up, requiring an equally significant reduction in demand from increased efficiency just to maintain the status quo of price and therefore consumption."

wikipedia: Jevons Paradox

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', 'J')evons Paradox may occur when favorable supply conditions exist, such as the up side of the production curve. But it does not seem to apply when supply is contracting:

[tsakach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hen the price goes down, you increase consumption, relative to what it might have been....even in a declining supply scenario.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow can it be possible to increase consumption of something where consumption already matches supply, and the supply cannot be increased? Can you point me to an explaination of how this works?

[tsakach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'W')hat Jevon says is that you can't lower consumption through C&E.

Which means that all the C&E in the world won't decrease consumption.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', ' ')How can it be possible to increase consumption of something where consumption already matches supply, and the supply cannot be increased? Can you point me to an explaination of how this works?

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Conservation is a self-induced recession. Declining economic activity.

[tsakach]

I will search for evidence that refutes Jevons Paradox.

[tsakach]

{merged by MQ}

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'W')illiam Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) is best known as a British economist who was one of the pioneers of contemporary neoclassical economic analysis, with its subjective value theory rooted in marginal utility.

Chapter Seven of The Coal Question was entitled "Of the Economy of Fuel." Here he argued that increased efficiency in using a natural resource, such as coal, only resulted in increased demand for that resource, not a reduction in demand. This was because such improvement in efficiency led to a rising scale of production. "It is wholly a confusion of ideas," Jevons wrote

[emersonbiggins]

The U.S. economy is not a closed system the last time I checked. Energy inefficiency merely got offshored in the form of a declining domestic manufacturing base during that period. Pair that with a nebulous determination of economic activity, GDP, and we can see the "truth telling" that is taking place here.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Our basic conclusion," says Koomey, a scientist in the Environmental Energy Technologies Division and leader of Berkeley Lab's End-Use Energy Forecasting Group, "is that forecasters in the 1950 to 1980 period underestimated the importance of unmodeled surprises.

[Gridlock]

Does Jevon's paradox apply once Government rationing is imposed?