[thuja]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'I') have been called much worse than silly.

What's really silly is talking about becoming a better, more efficient consumer as if that was a noble, self less gesture.

Sure conservation means you save money... And so will I.

But it won't save 1 tiny bit energy.

Conservation may well be a useful survival skill on a personal level, but it won't impact global energy consumption.

Which is, of course, the whole point.

[kokoda]

Unfortunately economies either grow or shrink ... they never simply stay at the same level.

If money is not spent then the part of the economy that depends on that spending will wither ... which in turn effects other parts of the economy.

The entire financial system is dependant on continual growth. Growth means consumerism and consumerism means more energy.

I really can't think of a alternative, low energy model for an economic system that will allow for continual growth or even stay at a steady state.

[HEADER_RACK]

I have to agree with Thuja.
If you are conserving for the sole purpose of learning to live without it, for when it does run out. Then conservation has served it's purpose in the teaching.
If your conserving for the sole purpose of trying to make it go a little further,last a little longer. Then your efforts are about as useful as goose shit on a pump handle.

[JoeW]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kokoda', 'I') really can't think of a alternative, low energy model for an economic system that will allow for continual growth or even stay at a steady state.

[LoneSnark]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f money is not spent then the part of the economy that depends on that spending will wither ... which in turn effects other parts of the economy.

[The_Virginian]

The first poster (as pointed out by esteemed others) is mistaken...

"The explanation is that in our modern economy, saving energy makes people save money, which they either spend or invest...Spending the money will use energy"

This is not Jevon's "paradox" at all...

For example one could spend a huge amount on SOLAR CELLS and a battery bank to run the homestead...and thus USE LESS energy...

Money is not energy Per say...most people use it to by things that take energy to make...but that is not what it is... (Petro-dollar analogy excluded).

If you want to conserve energy, then do it for the sake of saving a few dollars...why not?

But every scrap of energy you save with a Mercury emitting compact florescent bulb...is in turn used by countries like CHINA to make goods for the whole world...

Just look at how the USA, when we ran out short of Petroleum, shifted manufacture to CHINA (etc.) to make up for the increased cost(s) by decreasing labor costs and environmental regulations...

(Filthy someone else's backyard, and pay in paper for labor and human suffering.....He He ... the gig was good for a while...let's be honest.)

[dub_scratch]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fonzcad3', 'J')evon's Paradox is often cited to reduce the effectiveness of conservation.

[master_rb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'm')aster_rb wrote:
Aaron is right, only prices will force efficiency, check Europe, to reduce energy waste you need to start on national levels with promotion of trains, buses etc.. not on a personal level- it goes nowhere,

"Man's a party animal" is a classic, a lot said and explained in a short sentence

[tsakach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'F')or example one could spend a huge amount on SOLAR CELLS and a battery bank to run the homestead...and thus USE LESS energy...

[kokoda]

In the real world most businesses grow by borrowing money against future earnings. This means that those earnings had better grow at a faster rate than the interest being charged on that loan, or that business won't be keeping its doors open for very long.

Take that concept and expand it to a national level and you can then understand why continual growth is needed for an economy to stay healthy. Growth is only possible through the consumption of massive amounts of energy. There is really no way to work your way around that problem.

A steady state economy simply can't work.

[kokoda]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tsakach', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'F')or example one could spend a huge amount on SOLAR CELLS and a battery bank to run the homestead...and thus USE LESS energy...

[tsakach]

The following quotes are from a report produced by the UK Energy Research Centre’s Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) function. The report argues that rebound effects vary widely between different technologies, sectors and income groups so that general statements about the size of such effects can be misleading. The assessment was overseen by a panel of experts and is extremely wide ranging, reviewing more than 500 studies and reports from around the world.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne interpretation of the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate is that all economically justified energy efficiency improvements will increase energy consumption above where it would be without those improvements. The main conclusion from the review is that such evidence does not exist. The theoretical and empirical evidence cited in favour of the postulate is suggestive rather than definitive, only indirectly relevant to the rebound effect and flawed in a number of respects.

[patience]

Great thoughts, gg3 and Aaron! Newbie here, albeit with a long awareness of the problems. My engineer attitude wants to reduce it all to practice. Let's see if I can summarize a general position here.

The rational choice for consumers is to consume when it is cheap, which I have to do, or lose long term advantages of preparation.
The short term illogical consumer choice is to conserve. The long term based choice, in the face of dwindling resources, is to prepare for that time, as this group espouses. And living lightly on the earth NOW, is the moral choice.

Isn't that moral choice a dilemna, though, if we wrongly chose to NOT prepare? Thus, we logically arrive at the idea to maximize our preparations, particularly directed at living sustainably in the future. (A consumer attitude of course wouldn't do that.)

So, being aware of the long term, I (the world, infact) should exploit resources to the max NOW, toward a sustainable future.

This logic seems clear to me. So, I hire the guy with a backhoe to dig me a root cellar, terrace my garden area, etc. Most of my neighbors think I'm nuts, no matter that I argue coming depression. Consumers are what they are.

I tend to think gg3 has a valid point that the breakdown of Jevon will come sooner, rather than later. Tales from the 1930's would seem to bear that out, with a similiar crash on the way, and the rapid climate change he points out. I would add that, if the German Energy Watch Goup's report of Oct. '07 comes true, and oil production drops at their 7%/yr estimate, then Jevon's won't be with us for very long. The triangle of pressures from these events will each augment the others, and Jevon's will be no more.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') tend to think gg3 has a valid point that the breakdown of Jevon will come sooner, rather than later. Tales from the 1930's would seem to bear that out, with a similiar crash on the way, and the rapid climate change he points out. I would add that, if the German Energy Watch Goup's report of Oct. '07 comes true, and oil production drops at their 7%/yr estimate, then Jevon's won't be with us for very long. The triangle of pressures from these events will each augment the others, and Jevon's will be no more.

[patience]

Aaron, Not really what I was thinking. I agree with your logic, but I wasn't clear. I'm saying that I think demand destruction will negate Jevon's for the duration of, ironically, the depression brought about by high oil prices, and economic chaos in the financial world. Then, if climate change kicks us with a bad series of harvests, we could have Jevon's paradox held off until individual buying power makes oil affordable again. Even though oil prices would decline from demand destruction during a depression, if it's bad enough, consumption would stay down for a time. Is this possible?

Of course, in less dire circumstances, Jevon's comes back, right?

Maybe I'm just making a case for demand destruction for that period?

[mos6507]

$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.

[yesplease]

Bingo. Whatever consumption minimizes any need for further consumption while still facilitating the individual's objectives/desires is the best course of action IMO. Course, people are easily led, so instilling the desire to consume/participate in order to gain social leverage via money/power/religion/etc... has been a time honored tradition.

[FiniteQuantity]

Jevons Paradox or no Jevons Paradox - consumption will always increase until we stabilize population. Simple concept but hard for people to grasp because it involves something so sacred.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('patience', 'A')aron, Not really what I was thinking. I agree with your logic, but I wasn't clear. I'm saying that I think demand destruction will negate Jevon's for the duration of, ironically, the depression brought about by high oil prices, and economic chaos in the financial world. Then, if climate change kicks us with a bad series of harvests, we could have Jevon's paradox held off until individual buying power makes oil affordable again. Even though oil prices would decline from demand destruction during a depression, if it's bad enough, consumption would stay down for a time. Is this possible?

Of course, in less dire circumstances, Jevon's comes back, right?

Maybe I'm just making a case for demand destruction for that period?

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'J')evon just says that prices would be even higher without efficiency or conservation reductions.