[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kaktus', '[')code]And that is just what my question tries to elicit. What is the compromise?[/code]

I can only think of three alternatives (except from doing nothing) to handle the failure of markets:
1 that EU and US together suddenly decides to effectively tax and/or to use quotas on the using up of natural resources (taxes on CO2 for example) and forces the rest to join.
2 a sort of war economy where the usage of resources are centrally planned on state level.
3 that the trend to secure resources by military means escalates so that those with money get what they want.

Perhaps alt 1 is so unlikely that one should work for alt 2? if one don't like alt 3 of course.

[kaktus]

Thanks for the link. Lots of food for thought at the Oil drum and a better debating climate also.

So you take the "shadow rebound effect" as impossible to limit? That it is a question of a perfect zero sum game? I havent done so much thinking about it but it seems a very strong claim to do.
There is absolutely a good point made that it is crucial how an efficiency gain is spent. But say fe that a efficiency gain is used together with a decision to keep budget (well, almost) , do you really think it still would not matter at all? That this rebound effect is 100%? Or if an efficiency gain is used on RES projects instead?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kaktus', 'T')hanks for the link. Lots of food for thought at the Oil drum and a better debating climate also.

So you take the "shadow rebound effect" as impossible to limit? That it is a question of a perfect zero sum game? I havent done so much thinking about it but it seems a very strong claim to do.
There is absolutely a good point made that it is crucial how an efficiency gain is spent. But say fe that a efficiency gain is used together with a decision to keep budget (well, almost) , do you really think it still would not matter at all? That this rebound effect is 100%? Or if an efficiency gain is used on RES projects instead?

[gg3]

Geewhiz, JPL, just as I'm sitting down to eat a meal, I read your post about the cockerel. Yow. BTW, this is a good example of why people need to practice if they're going to have anything to do with firearms. Any of our recent military veterans or police officers here could probably have dispatched the bird with a single shot. BTW, if the bird was exhibiting signs of some kind of psychotic disorder, it may have had an infection of the kind that could be potentially dangerous to humans and needs to be reported to the public health authorities.

-----

Beware of so-called solutions that increase the net entropy of social systems. Breaking up the infrastructure and dumbing-down the population are examples of this type. Civilized societies, by which I mean those that exhibit ongoing decrease in internal violence and ongoing increase in stored information, are highly syntropic (negentropic), and this syntropy is very difficult to build & defend, and very easy to damage.

Look where we are now in the US with 30-something percent of our population being opposed to basic science (evolution). Look where that's gotten us. Now check out any urban ghetto with a high dropout rate and a high level of gang activity. Is that what you want? Hell no.

The trick is to reduce the consumption and resource throughput without increasing the level of violence or decreasing the level of stored knowledge. This is not easy.

My proposal was to start a cultural meme about reducing consumption while investing all surplus income in sequestering nonrenewable resources and carbon. The chic expensive lifestyle that looks like being a member of the working poor. I believe it would work while not increasing social entropy. Now that I think of it, the 1960s counterculture tried this one half-way: glorified poverty, but no mechanism for investing in resource & carbon sequestration. Hmm, there may be some lessons to learn there.

And here's another one for you: legalize recreational marijuana and promote it like crazy. Pot is the ideal powerdown drug: makes people feel totally satisfied to just sit there and enjoy whatever they are doing at the moment, with no need to strive or shop or consume or whatever. And yet apparently it doesn't make people stupid either, or interfere with learning (at least by adults). A society where pot is as common as coffee, is going to be a society that is powering-down whether anyone knows it or not. And yeah, I'm serious. (Maybe this ties into the 1960s thing about glorified poverty? But which came first, the glorification of poverty or the pot smoking? Hmm, more research to do...)

[bshirt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '-')----
And here's another one for you: legalize recreational marijuana and promote it like crazy. Pot is the ideal powerdown drug: makes people feel totally satisfied to just sit there and enjoy whatever they are doing at the moment, with no need to strive or shop or consume or whatever. And yet apparently it doesn't make people stupid either, or interfere with learning (at least by adults). A society where pot is as common as coffee, is going to be a society that is powering-down whether anyone knows it or not. And yeah, I'm serious. (Maybe this ties into the 1960s thing about glorified poverty? But which came first, the glorification of poverty or the pot smoking? Hmm, more research to do...)

[kaktus]

monte wrote
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou would have to sequester the gains or the money saved, right?
As long as it is let loose into the economy, it will increase energy consumption.
Matters not if it is beneficial or not. GDP is GDP. Katrina boosted GDP, no?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kaktus', ' ')A fast increase in energy prices will automatically give a economic crunch so we dont have to worry consumption willgo down. will you then still argue we are as well of with a million kilometers of highway as with a thousnd kilometers of railway or whatever choice you can make in public fundings.

[gg3]

Re. a fast increase in energy prices: it will have to be faster than we're presently seeing.

This evening I heard two stories on the radio (KCBS news) one after the other:

One, the economy is turning crappy, housing and financials and all that stuff are on the way down.

Two, the price of oil is up to $78/bbl, *because* the market expects the economy to do well and demand to go up!

I kid you not. Whereas in fact oil is at $78 because supply is starting to go flat while demand keeps increasing, until Ma Nature jerks our chain hard enough to really get our attention.

I suspect we're going to need to see gas in the US go above $5/gallon before people start to come out of denial. On the other hand a few years ago we were all saying $3 was the magic number and look where we are now. Hmm.

[kaktus]

gg3 wrote.
[quote]Re. a fast increase in energy prices: it will have to be faster than we're presently seeing.
quote]

Isnt this an example that the markets are fundamentally irrational? which means its not very easy to tell what will happen exactly. my take for today is that eventually the terrible thought that the party is over will hit people and then , and not until then, most economies will experience a crunch. and then the problem of shopaholics will have disapeared:) And: in that stage it will matter if we have chosen to invest in sustainable technology or in fossil technology.

[kaktus]

monte:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the goal is to reduce overall consumption, 9which is the crux of the debate) it matters not what you use it for.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kaktus', 'm')onte:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the goal is to reduce overall consumption, 9which is the crux of the debate) it matters not what you use it for.

[kaktus]

Monte
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')h, but you see, this all came about because efficiency gains were being touted as a way to meet demand when supply declines.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kaktus', ' ')Ah, we have been in this debate before!
Supply always meets demand.

[kaktus]

OK, I got your view. I learnt some. I'm sure you mean good.

Perhaps you want something to think about for the weekend: Has supply of oil met demand the last 50 years? I mean, since its only now that supply seem to peak at the same time as demand (that is your understanding of it) is increasing? Have people in poor countries like Afghanistan got their *demand* satisfied? As you say that "energy is like air" they must have, right? if they haven't, it must be because they so stupid they dont realize it.

Over and out.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kaktus', '
')Perhaps you want something to think about for the weekend: Has supply of oil met demand the last 50 years? I mean, since its only now that supply seem to peak at the same time as demand (that is your understanding of it) is increasing? Have people in poor countries like Afghanistan got their *demand* satisfied? As you say that "energy is like air" they must have, right? if they haven't, it must be because they so stupid they dont realize it.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I')f energy demand on the scale we are talking about isn't satisfied, only a few things can happen:

They will meet their demand with some "other" energy source, as is happening across the globe with deforestation...

[MonteQuest]

Your point, Ludi?

[JPL]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')our point, Ludi?

[OZ_DOC]

It seems obvious to me, but surely jevons paradox fails if the efficiency gains occur as you slide down the back of hubberts curve (or any falling supply curve) after peak oil has been reached. Assuming there isnt mass collapse and the decline is at a rate at which conservation measures can be put in place both forced and voluntary then if those measures cut consumption at approximately the rate of the fall in supply then it is not possible for such consumptin to produce the excess supply and drop in price that causes jevons paradox to occur.

It's always seemed odd to me that the peak oil community seems obsessed with jevons paradox because it seems to me that PO is the one event which will render it null and void.

[yesplease]

I think some ecotopians see it as some sort of rationalization we'll continue to use up everything until there's nothing left. This is true, to an extent. I mean, we'll use up ourselves until there's noting left. However, using something like oil, that's more a product than it is a resource, to justify this is downright silly. The resources we really need at any given point are fairly strictly regulated, unlike oil which is needlessly wasted. We have no need for oil, in fact we're using it as quick as we can, and when it's gone, or gets too expensive we'll transition to something else.