[highlander]

So.... is anybody coming down with trenchfoot yet?
An often ignored effect of the "C" word is a lack of investment in the maintenance and upgrade of the infrastructure. I believe this is a major reason why our electricity distributing grid is in such poor shape. During the good ol Enron years, there was a glut of proposed projects to generate electricity from natural gas. Most of these projects disappeared upon Enrons collapse. Did the high price of electricity promote conservation and efficiency gains? Was there a real energy distribution problem? Is there any difference between electricity then and gasoline now?

[grink1tt3n]

Perhaps one way to look at this Paradox is like a commute on a highway.

In the fast lane, you usually want to keep a distance of at least 6 cars between you and the car in front of you.

However, in any moderately busy highway, what will happen is that as soon as that space cushion is available, a driver in the next lane will pull in front of you to occupy that space.

Keeping that resource available (space in the fast lane) invites someone else to take it.

[Last_Laff]

I've read almost entire thread and I want to ask this question about Jevons' Paradox. I understand the efficiency that people try to put into from oil money to products and travel usage. We try to save what we can do, conserving as we'd think we are doing it. But it just increases the efficiency (correct me if I'm wrong as it sound about right). Like I said I understand the same effect for the alternatives.

So the question; is Jevons' Paradox itself a dangerous theory? I mean dangerous as the outcome of the peak oil? If it is, it might tell you the timing and the efficiency at what have we been doing?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Last_Laff', 'S')o the question; is Jevons' Paradox itself a dangerous theory? I mean dangerous as the outcome of the peak oil? If it is, it might tell you the timing and the efficiency at what have we been doing?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'C')onservation and efficiency save my household $2250 per year. Every year we save that amount. It has emboldened me to buy a new fuel efficient vehicle. The money we saved has allowed us to put on solar hot water panels to capture sunlight that we didn't have access to before.

The guys who came to put them on started with 1 truck a few years ago. Now they are up to 7 trucks and 14 guys working. They are exploiting a "new" energy source, but they are growing, and the local economy is benefitting. The money is staying local. These guys have families and are probably buying cars, heating houses, etc. I guess I am proposing a new way of switching energy sources. Efficiency and conservation allow more people to live an adequate life, and probably add up to more energy used, but some of it comes from an unexploited source, the sun. What's the matter with that?

[Ludi]

Kind of confused by your message Aaron.



What sacrifices do you want us to be making, exactly?


Thanks.

[Last_Laff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Last_Laff', 'S')o the question; is Jevons' Paradox itself a dangerous theory? I mean dangerous as the outcome of the peak oil? If it is, it might tell you the timing and the efficiency at what have we been doing?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'K')ind of confused by your message Aaron.



What sacrifices do you want us to be making, exactly?


Thanks.

[Ludi]

Thanks, Aaron. I'll be sure to ask my wife about that.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Last_Laff', ' ')By emprical you mean; Empyrical - containing the combustible principle of coal or empirical - relying on or derived from observation or experiment?

So if that's in italic is correct, then, my opinion is that, this observation is true in a dangerous way.

The quote you stated above makes pretty much sense without any argument.

[rumspringa]

A forthcoming book on Jevon's Paradox from Earthscan Publication.

<b>Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements</b>
By John M. Polimeni, Kozo Mayumi, Mario Giampietro and Blake Alcott
NOT YET PUBLISHED

Hardback £65.00 ISBN: 1844074625 / 9781844074624
Publication Date: January 2008
192 pages; 234 x 156mm; Figures, tables, index

• Build more roads and congestion goes up, not down; improve engine efficiency and people drive more, increasing (as opposed to decreasing) emissions - these are examples of Jevons' Paradox, and clearly illustrate its importance in modern debates around resource use
• From an international team of researchers, this is the first book to tackle the issues head-on - with special focus on the case of oil usage
• Will be an essential addition to any economics, energy or resource management departmental bookshelf

'Jevons' Paradox', which was first expressed in 1865 by William Stanley Jevons in relation to use of coal, states that an increase in efficiency in using a resource leads to increased use of that resource rather than to a reduction. This has subsequently been proved to apply not just to fossil fuels, but other resource use scenarios. For example, doubling the efficiency of food production per hectare over the last 50 years (due to the Green Revolution) did not solve the problem of hunger. The increase in efficiency increased production and worsened hunger because of the resulting increase in population. The implications of this in today's world are substantial. Many scientists and policy makers argue that future technological innovations will reduce consumption of resources; Jevons' Paradox explains why this may be a false hope.

This is the first book to provide a historical overview of Jevons' Paradox, provide evidence for its existence and apply it to complex systems. Written and edited by world experts in the fields of economics, technology and the environment, it explains the myth of efficiency and explores its implications for resource usage (particularly oil). It is a must-read for policy makers, natural resource managers, academics and students concerned with the effects of efficiency on resource use.

John M. Polimeni is assistant professor of economics at Albany College of Pharmacy, US. Mario Giampietro is senior researcher and director of the Unit of Technological Assessment and Food Technology at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), Rome, Italy. Kozo Mayumi is full professor at Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences, the University of Tokushima, Japan. Blake Alcott is currently reading for an MPhil in environmental policy at the Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.

Contents
Foreword * Historical Overview of Jevons' Paradox in Literature * Jevons' Paradox and the Myth of Efficiency * Jevons' Paradox and the Evolution of Complex Adaptive Systems * Empirical Evidence of Jevons' Paradox * Bibliography, Index

Earthscan has a bunch of books on energy issues. They are usually expensive -- get them from a library .

[Tanada]

It would be nice if our library would stock it, but as a foreign title with an expensive cover price that is not a high probabillity. If you buy it and then put it on Abebooks.com or halfprice.com or some such after you read it I might get to purchase it for a discount (hint hint)

[MonteQuest]

As we learned from this thread, Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation Jevons Paradox is not an argument against conservation or efficiency gains, it is a wakeup call to the reality of the expected results.

The unexpected results being that all observed efficiency gains to date have led to increased consumption.

How do we counter this?

Taxes lead to greater efficiency.

So does rationing.

How does one avoid the "rebound effect"?

Seems that all gains must be directed at reducing efficiency????? LOL!

So, what is left?

Taking all gains out of the market and using them to transition to a sustainable system, irrespective of economics?

Think this one through before you respond.

[MacG]

Shooting from the hip here: Look at the examples. We have some resource stripped areas of this world where Jevon's Paradox have run rampant for at leat some fivehundred years. Just look at the Arab world and the 'stans. Add China and India prior to 1980. More and more people crammed tighter and tighter. They found ways to cope. Not very nice. But they seem to have preferred 'not very nice' over 'death'. Life seem to be a precious thing, and most people seem to sacrifice just about everything to stay in Life. I don't object - apply to me too.

[thuja]

Monte- is this a trick question? It is seemingly impossible to offset the Paradox in a "free market". Truly- only global ratification of binding international agreements to simultaneously reduce consumption levels is the only way one could overcome the Paradox and truly "powerdown". All other efforts- in situ- will likely lead to greater consumption levels...is this what you are driving at?

[Madpaddy]

Thuja,

I think you have it bang on.

We are entering the era of declining overall available energy.

Therefore the only increases in productivity must be through more efficient use of energy.

Any increased productivity must be channelled into sustainable development.

This can only be done with binding international agreements.

[aflurry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')s we learned from this thread, Jevons Paradox - Death by conservation Jevons Paradox is not an argument against conservation or efficiency gains, it is a wakeup call to the reality of the expected results.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', 'T')his important distinction between conservation and efficiency often goes overlooked. It is only by doing so that people regard Jevons Paradox as this inescapable doom law.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'M')onte- is this a trick question? It is seemingly impossible to offset the Paradox in a "free market". Truly- only global ratification of binding international agreements to simultaneously reduce consumption levels is the only way one could overcome the Paradox and truly "powerdown". All other efforts- in situ- will likely lead to greater consumption levels...is this what you are driving at?

[Ludi]

It seems to me the answer is what the Puritans won't want to hear - we need an incredibly lazy, inefficient way of life, in which we produce virtually nothing beyond our needs for survival, and produce those in a way which doesn't require much, if any, non-living (human, animal, or plant) energy. This is so counter to our society, our culture, our historical values, as to be anathema to many, possibly most, people.