[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omgwtfbyobbq', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I') said it was not an unproven theory or forecast. Both are proven.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', ' ')Is Jevon's Paradox a proven theory?

[omgwtfbyobbq]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ere:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'W')hen I say it is not a prediction, I mean it is not an unproven theory or forecast of things to come. Jevon's Paradox wouldn't exist if not for observed reality following efficieincy gains...whether or not the free market is ideal is moot. It doesn't change observed reality.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omgwtfbyobbq', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ere:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'W')hen I say it is not a prediction, I mean it is not an unproven theory or forecast of things to come. Jevon's Paradox wouldn't exist if not for observed reality following efficieincy gains...whether or not the free market is ideal is moot. It doesn't change observed reality.

[tsakach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'M')atters not what you call it, the results are the same; efficiency gains results in increased use.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', ' ')I respect your effort in trying to help people grasp the concept. It would be helpful if the terms used to describe the concept were clearly defined, and references to studies and data are made available to help people come to conclusions on their own.

[tsakach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')here are 17 pages with all kinds of clear definitions, links, and outside data in this thread alone. I know of at least two other threads with even more.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', ' ')It is very tedious wading through these long threads, because as you are well aware, there is a lot of extraneous fluff to sift through. A sticky with the relevant information would be extremely helpful. .

[MonteQuest]

But, since you insist:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3').7. The "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", though it has not been proven empirically, is consistent with classical economic theory, and offers a plausible explanation of patterns of energy use in developed economies. As Professor Paul Ekins, head of the Environment Group at the Policies Studies Institute and co-Director of the new United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), told us, "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" (Q 261).

[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained.

This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible. (Q 424)

[omgwtfbyobbq]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'D')irect observation of reality is proof enough for most theories I know of.

[DrChaos]

me: <i>With increased efficiency, Japanese drive more efficient cars, and as far as I am aware, they don't drive two or three of them at a time.</i>

response: <i>
You didn't read this thread first did ya?

1st page, 1st post...

Quote:
The introduction of more energy-efficient automobiles in this country in the 1970s did not curtail the demand for fuel because driving increased and the number of cars on the road soon doubled.</i>

Is "this country" Japan or USA? I mentioned Japan because there is a distinct recognition of a national imperative for energy efficiency.

The efficiency improvments of cars in 1970s certainly did decrease oil consumption below its previous trend in the USA. Also it is impossible to ignore the obvious subsequent facts, namely that starting in early 80's real oil prices decreased very significantly for many years afterwards and fuel efficiency standards were not increased, and the huge loophole for trucks & SUVs remained in the USA.

Let's also not confuse "energy consumption" with petroleum consumption---it is fossil petroleum which is by far the imminent depletion.

And note that population increases can always overcome all efficiency improvements. Again, Japan has low or negative population growth as they are highly anti-immigration.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omgwtfbyobbq', ' ')I was asking where the proof was.

[DrChaos]

If we were to believe the doomer argument on "Jevons paradox", we'd be hunting 100,000 whales a day by now, but obviously we hit Peak Whaling first.

We will be using less petroleum whether we like it or not (and most will not), and in this cirumstance efficiency gains will happen and stick and people will bitch.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DrChaos', 'A')nd note that population increases can always overcome all efficiency improvements.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DrChaos', 'I')f we were to believe the doomer argument on "Jevons paradox", we'd be hunting 100,000 whales a day by now, but obviously we hit Peak Whaling first.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('omgwtfbyobbq', ' ')I was asking where the proof was.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')nd if we gain some supply due to conservation or efficiency gains we will suck it up as well, especially if the price is lower..relative to what it would have been without conservation or efficiency gains.

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '
')
The difference, Monte, is not on the level of consumption, then.

The difference is on how many people can afford to enjoy the resource and how much benefit they can extract from it. With efficiency, more people can afford the resource, and extract from it more benefit.

So, conservation does achieve something, doesn't it?

[tsakach]

How does Jevons Paradox apply to non-grid connected renewable energy sources like solar panels, solar thermal, wind power or wood stoves?

For instance, with a wood burning stove, increased efficiency would result in less wood being gathered from the site. With non-grid connected photovoltaic systems, excess electricity is not used for anything - it doesn't go anywhere. Increasing the efficiency of a refrigerator will only result in a decrease in electricity use, since no market exists to absorb the excess energy.

These small independent energy sources operate on a microeconomic scale and are not connected to a grid or distribution network, so efficiency gains do not roll up to the macroeconomic scale. Increased efficiency does not generate extra money since the energy has already been paid for, and no market exists to sell the excess energy. In this case, macroeconomic energy distribution only occurs in the form of embodied energy in the durable good, such as a wood burning stove.

The point at which you go off grid releases the energy you were using back to the market, so Jevons Paradox would apply to this action. But from this point forward you no longer participate in the energy macroeconomy, so subsequent improvements in energy efficiency affect only the microeconomic level and do not result in increased demand caused by Jevons Paradox.

[TWilliam]

Jeezus you people make my head hurt...

Jevons did not 'theorize' or 'postulate' that an increase in efficiency would ultimately lead to an increase in consumption; he simply observed that that's what happens. If you increase the availability of a resource (i.e. reduce it's cost), whether by finding more of it or by increasing the efficiency of it's use, the ultimate outcome is that demand increases and more of it gets used, until physical limits prevent further expansion. End of story.

If you consider that really what we're ultimately talking about is sunlight (energy), then you begin to realize that this has happened throughout the course of human history. From hunting/gathering to agriculture to steam power first with wood then coal then oil and ultimately to internal combustion engines, we have repeatedly increased our efficiency in our use of sunlight, with the result that today we have the most solarly efficient civilization that has yet existed on this world (at least as far as we know), and we use more of it now than we ever have in the past.

Greater efficiency; greater consumption. Without exception.

Monte says we have 150 years of empirical evidence? He's wrong. We have several thousands of years of it that clearly demonstrate that Jevons' observation is correct.