[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')t 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.

[DavidFolks]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', 'I') think there have probably been many observable efficiency gains, but very few genuine conservation gains. We have yet to know the effect of a genuine, sustained conservation effort.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DavidFolks', ' ')Asserting that conservation caused the depression is exactly opposite to what really happened.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I had red all posts above.
My overall impression is that Jevon's paradox will be around, as long as we have free market economy and population growth.
Perhaps in environment of die off (natural population decline) we may temporary "suspend" its effects, as peoples will have some more important things to worry about, than mindless consuming of more and more.
Once die off is over Jevon's paradox will kick in again as long as market economy is still around...
In any case it is rather default situation.

Some possible solution would be in relentless increasing of taxes on natural resources in a kind of "elevator" scheme run ab infinitum, regardless of consequences to economy and well being of individuals. Such undertaking would have to be run worldwide.
Any state income from such taxation would be spend to facilitate transition to sustainable way of life, not to improve healthcare, education etc.
I would find it difficult to call such a setup "free market".

Again, actual chance of introducing such a scheme in existing civilization is next to nil.
So we are sentenced to follow Jevon's route in our relentless race to the bottom.

It is interesting observation that sustainable life is deeply against "man's hubris".
That is why all civilizations built by man are invariably collapsing. This one will not be an exception.
There is no realistic way out.

[IslandCrow]

In a free market economy, the only way to offset Jevon's Paradox (and I realise that this will only be a very, very [sub]small[/sub] offset) is to control how I use any benefits from conservation and efficiency that I receive. How I spend my money (or don't spend it) is one signal that I can give to the market.

Jevon's Paradox seems to work in well functioning markets, where if I do not buy someone else will. This also works well for items that are easily transported from one place to another. I don't have any academic papers to support this, but I suspect that the Paradox works less well in small populations where maybe surplus production can not be easily used, or where the system breaks down (eg crops rotting in the fields because not enough cheap labour is available locally to pick them). So in this I have a gut feeling that the best way to work on offsetting Jevon's Paradox is to support the process of re-localization.

[Byron100]

In the face of forever declining oil, isn't this whole Jervon's Paradox a moot point? Sure, we can conserve all we want, but one thing remains the same...there is less to go around, period.

I think the real question is whether we limit total consumption via market pricing (rich countries outbidding the poor ones, and within the rich nations, the rich people outbidding the poor ones) -or- institute a comprehensive rationing system that matches the rate of decrease of fossil fuel production. But the chances of something like this being enacted without a world government in place is probably tougher than trying to win the Mega Millions lottery. One country decides to conserve by rationing, another will surely take advantage of having that little bit more to use for their economic advantage. So market pricing it will be until we run short enough to actually bring down the global economy :/

Another point to consider is how to move society away from hydrocarbons for good...a total paradigm change if there ever was one. But this will not happen until we're deep into decline, as people in general aren't going to get off their duff with this until its affecting them directly. And we all know this isn't going to be a pretty picture...

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')t 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.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I')t is interesting observation that sustainable life is deeply against "man's hubris".
That is why all civilizations built by man are invariably collapsing. This one will not be an exception.
There is no realistic way out.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Byron100', 'I')n the face of forever declining oil, isn't this whole Jevon's Paradox a moot point?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', ' ')My overall impression is that Jevon's paradox will be around, as long as we have free market economy and population growth.

[mididoctors]

Rationing and "free" markets are not incompatible

increased utility or growth of utility with a capped consumption limit can operate in a market fashion


there are no "free" markets anyway

Boris
London

[Bas]

Jevon's paradox just doesn't apply in a decreasing supply situation, go figure.

edit: i.e. we will only use less no matter how efficient we get at using oil. Only a good thing IMO.

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s long as efficiency gains offset decline, the price will drop...relative to what it would have been.

[aflurry]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$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('mididoctors', 'R')ationing and "free" markets are not incompatible

increased utility or growth of utility with a capped consumption limit can operate in a market fashion

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', ' ')How about some sort of variable tax that increases/decreases with the price of crude.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aflurry', ' ')Sorry, still looks to me like what was observed was the effect of increased efficiency, not conservation. And what i am saying is that the two things don't have the same overall effect, even if their effect on prices is arguably the same.

[JPL]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', ' ')My overall impression is that Jevon's paradox will be around, as long as we have free market economy and population growth.

[Pops]

How to offset Jevons' Paradox in a free market?

I would say get out of the market.

I love these Big Theory threads that mean little to folks with some understanding of the underlying problem and a willingness to do something instead of talk.

I guess I am thinking Jevon works to my advantage – the more folks conserve and the lower the price pressure; the easier it is for me.

Conserve away, ride your bike or drive your Pirus and keep tapping away. By doing so you reduce demand and keep the price of energy down…

Which just makes things easier for me to get by and set up stuff for my kids.

In case you have't been paying attention, the point is, conservation just means the end of the dipstick gets closer.

But you all knew that.

[oiless]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')t 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.