Quick poll-how many here believe Jevons paradox is valid?

[riverdeep]

Jevons paradox, which basically says that "technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

[riverdeep]

1. Oh, feel free to say why and any backup example. n/t

[Idealism]

2. In the short-term perhaps

But as a long-term trend, probably not. There is only so much consumption one can do without new ways of consuming said product can occur.

[ElboRuum]

3. The problem with it is that it's not really a paradox.

Technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used often carries with it an increase in the facilitation of use that gives it a wider range of uses or brings use of the resource to a wider range of users. While the efficiency increases, so does the facility of usage, so while the amount of resource used for a specific purpose may be lessened, often the number of purposes increase and/or the number of users engaging in that purpose increase.

Suppose the materials used in the creation of solar panels is the resource in question. At that point in time, let's say that we use X amount of the materials, and we get Y amount of electricity as a result. The materials cost Z, and let's say Z is a marginally high number, just out of range of most consumers. Now someone comes along and finds a way of processing X such that the output of X is now 2Y. Let's also say that it takes no more labor or expense to process the materials in the new way versus the old way, so Z is still the same. Now a panel can be produced which outputs Y electricity for 1/2Z cost. Now, the cost is within the range of most consumers, and demand goes up. Now, say that their production has quintupled to meet the demand. 2 1/2 times the original consumption of materials because of a doubled efficiency of consumption.

Where's the paradox again? Seems to make perfect sense to me.

[riverdeep]

5. I think the paradox was in the context that Jevon was talking about.

Coal. He found coal usage had gone up with a more efficient machine, and most people, I gather, had expected it to go down.

The example you used does assume elastic demand, of course.

[ElboRuum]

15. Well, I think we must assume elastic demand...

...where consumption of valuable resources are concerned, don't you? What I think we would find is that if demand remains the same, then it would go down. But where resources are concerned, where is this ever the case? The fact that resource consumption operate on the ebb and flow of demand for those resources, you can't really assess this phenomenon without taking it into account.

Like I said, this paradox is no paradox. In full view of the facts, there is reasonable explanation for the phenomenon which does not self-contradict.

[joshcryer]

18. If everyone had the same access to resources, same distribution, etc, it *would* be a paradox.

But of course that's simply not the case. The question attempts to make it the case by putting technology in a corner.

[The2ndWheel]

4. Look at all the products that are made of oil

The better we got at extracting it, the cheaper we made it, since there was more of it. Do we use more oil today then we did in 1860? 1880? 1900? 1930? 1960? 2000? How many different ways have been thought up on how to use oil?

Like was said in a post above this one, when we find a way to create product A using less oil, the extra oil doesn't just sit there(letting it sit there would be actual conservation). It goes to creating another product A. Or we create a completely new product B. It just goes on and on like that until we hit product 56YH330P2V-4RR2. Also, as was mentioned, it allows more people to use whatever product it is that has been made. The whole point of making products cheaper is so that more people(lower on the economic ladder) have access to it, growing the economy, creating more jobs, which increases consumption.

[bananas]

6. Both answers are true

"Yes, it's a valid, measurable effect and environmentalists need to account for it."
For example, as efficiency for renewables increase, they are used more.
Duh.

"No, it's hyped and simplistic, and other factors play a larger role in the real world."
It is hyped and simplistic, often used by doomers who think it proves that we're going to run out of energy and return to the stone age. I saw a post by someone who thought it was better to drive gas guzzling SUV's than smaller efficient cars because it would make the oil last longer.

[riverdeep]

8. Maybe my wording is off, but I tend to see it used as a sharp stick

against environmentalists. i.e. 'don't bother trying to make things green, you'll just make everything run out faster, anyway'. It's also used a way of making environmentalists seem naive, that they don't think things through.

[bananas]

12. In that case, I'll vote "No".

I also see it mostly used that way.

[riverdeep]

13. I think you mean 'yes' actually,

if the effect is obvious ("duh") as in your first post, then yes it's a valid theory.

[bananas]

14. Too late! I already voted no!

Sorry!

[GliderGuider]

7. It's also called the "rebound effect"

The Khazoom-Brookes postulate is a more modern restatement of the basic idea. As mentioned it's not a paradox, it's just a bit surprising when you first encounter the idea.

The effect is often obscured because it can spill outside the boundary of the system under consideration, due to substitution or knock-on effects. I have a very expensive little book at home that analyzes it in great gory detail, and comes to the conclusion that it's real and measurable, but you really have to be careful and understand thoroughly the system you're measuring.

[riverdeep]

9. So, that's another both yes and no?

Or more 'no' because while it exists, no real world system is actually neatly closed?

[GliderGuider]

11. See my response below. n/t

[GliderGuider]

10. Here's a variation that is easier to comprehend

Any increase in the efficiency of use of a resource will cause aggregate economic activity to increase. This happens because the higher efficiency frees up resources that can be applied to other activities.

[depakid]

16. Counterintuitive but quite valid

and demonstrated repeatedly over the years.

Not too dissimilar from Keynes' paradox of thrift (which we've been hearing about lately).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift

[joshcryer]

17. This assumes equal resource distribution, it's not true when varying societies have different...

...uses of resources.

It would be better stated that "Technological progresses that increases the efficiency with which a resurce is used in a society in which resources are disproportionately distributed, results in a redistribution, and likewise, an increase in that resource."

However, this says nothing of resources as a whole, because there is no net gain or loss, and in a perfectly recycling society (a society that resembles natural ecosystems), it would be a meaningless statement.

[GliderGuider]

19. I don't understand your argument

Rebound analysis is usually done within a single economic domain (usually a country). I also don't understand what "resources are disproportionately distributed" means -- are you talking about resource ownership or physical distribution or something else?

I also don't get your last statement about ecosystems. In a naturally occurring climax ecosystem there is no waste, but there can still be changes in resource usage within the ecosystem if one part of it gains efficiency. This doesn't happen to a great extent in natural ecosystems consisting of non-human organisms, since the only way for a species to change its efficiency is for it to evolve, which is a slow process. Human activity breaks that pattern, though, which is why we have such a large impact on every ecosystem we invade.

Am I missing your point?

[joshcryer]

21. It was late when I wrote that.

And it's late as I write this...

You got a river, people are fishing from it. Someone invents a way to more effectively catch fish. We can take the western Indians for example, and their netting practices. Now before the net was discovered the uptake of fish was more limited, but after the more efficient means of fishing was found, there is a reasonable increase in fishing as more and more people adapted to the new technology.

If the population levels remained relatively the same the new technology, by definition, would be more efficient from every objective criteria and resource utilization would not go up. But population levels don't remain the same with more efficient means to provide for ones self. If you include each new individual as consuming compared to previous individuals, arguably consumption goes down on a per-individual basis as technological efficiency occurs.

Take for example people growing food hydroponically vs getting food from the wild. The overall energy utilization of the former is far less than that of the latter for one human being to provide for itself.

The point being that we can have a society that has little or no "impact" on the natural environment. And that technological efficiency, eventually, must reach an upper limit whereby consumption levels off.

[Terry in Austin]

20. Efficiency vs. conservation

I would consider the Jevons effect self-evident. When there's increased efficiency in consuming a fuel, human nature takes over: rather than getting the same amount of results for less fuel, people will opt to get more results for the same amount of fuel.

We hear a lot about "more efficient technology" as a response to energy and climate challenges, but this is a little misleading. "Efficiency" isn't the same as "conservation." Efficiency simply lets you use less; conservation means that you make a point of using less.

[joshcryer]

22. In other words "conservation" means efficiency benefits shouldn't be shared?

Because a more efficienct technology lends itself to being distributed more easily, meaning that people who didn't before have that technology (ie the majority of the world for most luxuries we enjoy), would then be able to have it, thus "increasing" the overall consumption.

Energy and climate problems are the result of poor management, not utilization in and of itself. As far as energy is concerned we're actually below quite a few species of life with regards to utilization, we just do it dang poorly and without concern for anything in the natural environment.