ddoubleez

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Well lets try this again....

This is the logic behind Jevons’ paradox, first propounded by British economist William Stanley Jevons in his 1866 book The Coal Question. Jevons pointed out that when improvements in technology make it possible to use an energy resource more efficiently, getting more output from less input, the use of the resource tends to go up, not down. His argument is impeccable: as the use of the resource becomes more efficient, the cost per unit of the end result tends to go down, and so people can afford to use more of it; as efficiency goes up, it also becomes economically feasible to apply the energy resource to new uses, and so people have reason to use more of it.

Jevons’ paradox has been used more than once to argue against conservation, on the grounds that using energy more efficiently will simply lower the cost of energy and encourage people to use more of it. The problem with this logic is that it assumes that the only thing constraining energy supply is price – and in a world already starting to skid down the far side of Hubbert’s peak, this is no longer true. Now that geological realities rather than market forces are placing hard limits on the upper end of petroleum production, Jevons’ paradox becomes a counterweight to rising energy prices.

Now it’s sometimes been suggested that all the easy gains from conservation were made in the 1970s, and that further gains will come at much higher cost. This would be true if the achievements of the Seventies had been kept in place, as they should have been – but were not. Compare the poorly insulated McMansions and gas-guzzling SUVs that define the recent American lifestyle with the snug homes and efficient compacts so common in 1979, and it takes an effort of will to avoid seeing the ground that has been lost.

Juan.©amaney

SO did you just want to present it to us, or what part did you want to discuss?

___________________________________________

kulotsalot

Here's what will happen:

1. Some people will disagree with this paradox thing.
2. DZ will say "Cite me some references!"
3. Some references will be cited.
4. DZ will say "Cite me some reputable references!"
5. An argument will ensue about what counts as a "reputable" reference.
6. "You're wrong!"
7. "No, you're wrong!"
8. "You're wronger and yo momma soooo fat..."

Cliffs: We've had this SAME energy thing discussed eleven million kajillion times in EOTH and they ALL end like that. What makes you think that another thread will somehow have a different outcome?

Juan.©amaney

I mean, I get it. It's like the vegetarian argument, "For every animal you don't eat I'm going to eat three." Big whoop, wanna fight about it?

I mean, can we discuss something else? This stuff is getting annoying. It's like when Joey bought that one encyclopedia and all he wanted to talk about was stuff that started with that letter cuz he couldn't afford the rest of the books.

___________________________________________