by DigitalCubano » Fri 08 Sep 2006, 01:16:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ypothesis? Jevon's Paradox is not some theory or possible prediction, it is an observation of reality.
From this quote its obvious that either your understanding of Jevon's paradox is flawed, or you're purposely and conveniently omitting 90% of what I just wrote to perpetuate your erronious perception of the causalities behind increased VMT and your flawed hypothesis that conservation/efficiency is ineffective.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'P')ut something on sale and people will buy more of it.
That's a fact.
Here, let me hold your hand: no one disputes that intuition, rather that it explains the entirety of conservation/efficiency dynamics, especially in the case you keep citing. It doesn't. That was the whole point of my past two posts.
by TWilliam » Fri 08 Sep 2006, 15:59:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DigitalCubano', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ypothesis? Jevon's Paradox is not some theory or possible prediction, it is an observation of reality.
From this quote its obvious that either your understanding of Jevon's paradox is flawed, or you're purposely and conveniently omitting 90% of what I just wrote to perpetuate your erronious perception of the causalities behind increased VMT and your flawed hypothesis that conservation/efficiency is ineffective.
Sorry DC but apparently
your understanding of what's being said is flawed. 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. Please note:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')i]
hypothesis: 1)a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2)a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
3)guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
When we get into speculating about
why conservation leads to increased consumption, then we are
theorizing or
hypothesizing. Jevons did
not theorize or hypothesize about the whys and wherefores; 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.
I really don't think that anyone here believes that conservation is a bad idea. 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.
The most that conservation can do is buy us some time to adapt to a shrinking energy supply, but only if we actually use that cushion to make the needed adjustments instead of continuing the historical pattern of finding more ways to accelerate our use of the perceived windfall.
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
by Aaron » Fri 08 Sep 2006, 17:27:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'T')he 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.
I have obsereved you to argue many times, (correctly so I think), that it
was this cheap, available energy which made those population increases
possible in the first place.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
by Pixie » Fri 08 Sep 2006, 18:31:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'H')ypothesis? I really don't think that anyone here believes that conservation is a bad idea. 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.
The most that conservation can do is buy us some time to adapt to a shrinking energy supply, but only if we actually use that cushion to make the needed adjustments instead of continuing the historical pattern of finding more ways to accelerate our use of the perceived windfall.
I agree with everything said in this quote (see above) but I wouldn't call it buying time. It's the long term solution. In a world of several billion people, we are always going to use all the energy we can afford. The Global community is never going to collectively and voluntarily decided to power down. But supply and price will force it. Some of us believe we'll be seeing a population crash and all sorts of unpleasant stuff. The more efficient we are at using energy, the less unpleasant stuff there needs to be. And after the crash, when population and living conditions stabilize at some reduced level, the more efficient we are, the better we'll be able to live. That's not buying time. That's the entire future of the human race, so far as I can see.
Just another tofu-munching bike-riding Rambo(/Rambette)
-
Pixie
- Lignite
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Tue 05 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
-
by Aaron » Fri 08 Sep 2006, 18:38:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pixie', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TWilliam', 'H')ypothesis? I really don't think that anyone here believes that conservation is a bad idea. 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.
The most that conservation can do is buy us some time to adapt to a shrinking energy supply, but only if we actually use that cushion to make the needed adjustments instead of continuing the historical pattern of finding more ways to accelerate our use of the perceived windfall.
I agree with everything said in this quote (see above) but I wouldn't call it buying time. It's the long term solution. In a world of several billion people, we are always going to use all the energy we can afford. The Global community is never going to collectively and voluntarily decided to power down. But supply and price will force it. Some of us believe we'll be seeing a population crash and all sorts of unpleasant stuff. The more efficient we are at using energy, the less unpleasant stuff there needs to be. And after the crash, when population and living conditions stabilize at some reduced level, the more efficient we are, the better we'll be able to live. That's not buying time. That's the entire future of the human race, so far as I can see.
...the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching eight-lanes-wide and August-hot for a thousand miles." ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 16
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
by MonteQuest » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 00:55:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'T')he 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.
I have obsereved you to argue many times, (correctly so I think), that it
was this cheap, available energy which made those population increases
possible in the first place.
Yes, I was agreeing with you. Just saying preemptively to arguments that this growth in consumption was a result of population growth
alone are not in evidence.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by MonteQuest » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 01:00:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', '
') We each just took three long hot showers from the hot water provided by the sun today. If we didn't have solar hot water our teenager's half hour showers would have cost us big money! Our smaller cars are keeping us moving around while others around us have lost their mobility. The woodstove has enabled us to keep our house at a reasonable temperature while others are chilly. My electric bike has enabled me to commute to work, and do errands practically for free. This stuff all works now. What's the problem? It has helped us out financially and it's fun! We are probably using around half the fossil fuels we used five years ago. Which is good, because they all cost twice as much!
For you...
But your reduced consumption has just lowered the price and made energy available for others who choose not to conserve.
This isn't about "me", this is about "us." Everywhere.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Aaron » Tue 12 Sep 2006, 14:26:04
Wow... forgot all about this thread...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..my favorite, Cuba, where the policy response to its own 'peak oil' in 1989 was a sustainable agriculture revolution.
Ever been to Cuba?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron
- Resting in Peace
-
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
-
by MrBill » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 04:10:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'W')ow... forgot all about this thread...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..my favorite, Cuba, where the policy response to its own 'peak oil' in 1989 was a sustainable agriculture revolution.
Ever been to Cuba?
Hey Meester, buy my seester? She's only fourteen 'n real clean?
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
by MrBill » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 12:18:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'I')f today's Cuba is what happens to US after PO, then I am happy. It sure beats what most people here are predicting.
Yes, except Cuba always had an external sponsor to pay its bills and provide them with energy - Spain, USA, Russia, China and now VZL. Who will pay our bills or give us energy we can no longer?
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill
- Expert
-
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia
-
by Aaron » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 15:09:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rdberg1957', 'C')onservation and efficiency alone will not alleviate energy problems and global warming. But despite enabling those not conserving energy to use more, it is the right thing to do. The US has 8% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy. If the US as a whole conserves and that leaves energy available for poor countries that is a good. If conservation becomes a norm and the cultural ethic changes, economic behavior may change.
Welcome to the board... hope you brought a helmet.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron
- Resting in Peace
-
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
-
