Jevon's Paradox

[Bobby]

In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons, who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox since it ran counter to Jevons's intuition, but it is well understood by modern economic theory which shows that improved resource efficiency may trigger a change in the overall consumption of that resource. The direction of that change depends on other economic variables.

Basically, silly things like us turning appliances off standby and buying a more efficient car will not have any impact on CO2 emissions or pollution whatsoever, because if we use less, it drives down the price of the resource we are using and frees up more for other nations like China. It really is making me nauseous when companies show off their "green" credentials by saying they don't waste energy, are more efficient etc, thus helping pollution and climate change - and people who think they are saving the planet by walking to work instead of driving the car or who put a solar panel on their house. It doesn't help anything, apart from making them feel better about themselves.

It also really shows the waste of time things like the Kyoto protocol really are. Slightly unrelated to Jevons, energy use in the UK for example has been pretty flat for 20 or so years. Does this mean we are saving the planet? No. The reason our energy use has been pretty flat is because we have exported much our industry to places like China and Vietnam, while we transfer to a "services economy". What Kyoto really encourages us to do is export out CO2 emissions to countries that aren't signed up to it. Bit of a joke really.

What I think we should be focusing on is things like carbon sequestration, perhaps "carbon off setting". Or maybe telling China, India etc not to use so much fossil fuels, which won't work. I also propose more nuclear plants - I think it's ridiculous that the UK is decomissioning our nuclear plants while exporting our industry to coal consuming China, especially considering that our North Sea gas production is in rapid decline, making us more and more dependent on Russia and the Middle East.

I really think there is nothing that can be done globally voluntarily about climate change.

Edited November 9, 2007 by Magpie

[Devonian]

Basically, silly things like us turning appliances off standby and buying a more efficient car will not have any impact on CO2 emissions or pollution whatsoever, because if we use less, it drives down the price of the resource we are using and frees up more for other nations like China. It really is making me nauseous when companies show off their "green" credentials by saying they don't waste energy, are more efficient etc, thus helping pollution and climate change - and people who think they are saving the planet by walking to work instead of driving the car or who put a solar panel on their house. It doesn't help anything, apart from making them feel better about themselves.

It also really shows the waste of time things like the Kyoto protocol really are. Slightly unrelated to Jevons, energy use in the UK for example has been pretty flat for 20 or so years. Does this mean we are saving the planet? No. The reason our energy use has been pretty flat is because we have exported much our industry to places like China and Vietnam, while we transfer to a "services economy". What Kyoto really encourages us to do is export out CO2 emissions to countries that aren't signed up to it. Bit of a joke really.

What I think we should be focusing on is things like carbon sequestration, perhaps "carbon off setting". Or maybe telling China, India etc not to use so much fossil fuels, which won't work. I also propose more nuclear plants - I think it's ridiculous that the UK is decomissioning our nuclear plants while exporting our industry to coal consuming China, especially considering that our North Sea gas production is in rapid decline, making us more and more dependent on Russia and the Middle East.

I really think there is nothing that can be done globally voluntarily about climate change.

Of course. I people did the right thing all the time we wouldn't need laws.

Companies like voluntary green measure because they're not much cop. Only when tough worldwide laws to protect the planet's working come in will real progress be made - at the 11th hour and the 59th minute I rekon.

[Stratos Ferric]

...I think it's ridiculous that the UK is decomissioning our nuclear plants while exporting our industry to coal consuming China, especially considering that our North Sea gas production is in rapid decline, making us more and more dependent on Russia and the Middle East.

I really think there is nothing that can be done globally voluntarily about climate change.

Take it from somebody who may or may not have a better inside line than most on here that you should probably keep watching this space.

Current plants are being decomissioned only because they are beyond or approaching their design life. I may decomission my aging car soon. Doesn't stop me from buyiong another one thought does it?

Part of the role of Government is to protect the national inetrest. Being wholly dependent upon potentially unstable sources of energy supply in future is not exactly in the national interest is it?

[Bobby]

I don't exactly have a lot of faith in our government though - they seem pretty ignorant of energy issues. I hope they start building nuclear reactors, but I'm not aware of any projects underway or even plans. It takes many years to build one and plenty of money and energy. We had better hurry up because things could get ugly soon.

We've also become a net importer of oil this year for the first time since the 1970's yet more and more SUV's seem to be hitting the roads than ever, despite rising petrol prices.

Edited November 10, 2007 by Magpie

[Stratos Ferric]

I don't exactly have a lot of faith in our government though - they seem pretty ignorant of energy issues. I hope they start building nuclear reactors, but I'm not aware of any projects underway or even plans. It takes many years to build one and plenty of money and energy. We had better hurry up because things could get ugly soon.

We've also become a net importer of oil this year for the first time since the 1970's yet more and more SUV's seem to be hitting the roads than ever, despite rising petrol prices.

You're partly right, but the bit you're missing is vital. Unlike pretty much any other major capital project nuclear (anything) has enormous downstream costs. The Government has to be sure of funding both the build, and then the long downstream decomissioning: get the latter wrong and you've got very serious health and security implications. Say the life of the plant is forty years, the downstream responsibilities last around one hundred and twenty. So you have an asset that costs a hell of a lot to build, with a forty year revenue stream, and one hundered and twenty years of cost to fund beyond that without any earnings coming in. Without giving any state secrets away it would be sensible of the Government to be exploring, for example, opportunities for the most advantageous tax treatment of build, cost effective yet safe disposal / decomissioning strategies, and funding and operation arrangements.

The Government is working hard on fuel strategy, as is a lot of the private sector, and as I mentioned at the top security of supply is one ongoing common feature of Government, irrespective of who is in power. I understand that because it isn't visible they may appear to be doing very little, but that is not in fact the case. And whilst the Government might seem 'pretty ignorant', it's not really the Government that matters - it's the civil service and the relevant department for any particular policy. What most people call 'the Government' (i.e. the elected politicans) is actually a thin presentational veneer of most of what goes on in running the country.

You're right that fuel prices are rising, but at present, in the great scheme of things, it's obviously fairly affordable for most people. Prices will have to get an awful lot higher before people rein back. In the meantime there has, over the past decade or so, been continuing investment in: gas pipelines and electricity feeds from mainland Europe; alternatives; energy conservation; and local generation for example.

[Calrissian]

Mr Jevons was indeed right.

The current drives to reduce energy consumption are relatively minor in effect, the typical person will continue to drive when they 'need', and consume as much as they always did.

The only issue is when the price of a product/service becomes so high that Mr Average can no longer afford to keep purchasing it.

[Bobby]

You're partly right, but the bit you're missing is vital. Unlike pretty much any other major capital project nuclear (anything) has enormous downstream costs. The Government has to be sure of funding both the build, and then the long downstream decomissioning: get the latter wrong and you've got very serious health and security implications. Say the life of the plant is forty years, the downstream responsibilities last around one hundred and twenty. So you have an asset that costs a hell of a lot to build, with a forty year revenue stream, and one hundered and twenty years of cost to fund beyond that without any earnings coming in. Without giving any state secrets away it would be sensible of the Government to be exploring, for example, opportunities for the most advantageous tax treatment of build, cost effective yet safe disposal / decomissioning strategies, and funding and operation arrangements.

...

I understand all that but there's not going to be a large number of nuclear plants in this country for many many years to come, perhaps decades. I don't think we have that much time. What if those Rooskies decide they don't want to give us our gas? We're hardly best friends with them, or the middle easterners. Anyway, offtopic now.

[BrickFielder]

Interesting idea but I think we are tending to mix up two things here. Firstly Jevrons idea is along the lines of if we make an engine which does 200 miles per gallon instead of doing the same amount of driving and accepting the reduction in cost we will do more driving because it is cheaper.

What is a seperate issue and perhaps a worrying concept is that by controlling and reducing emissions in the UK we increase global emissions. This is on the premise that industry will migrate to countries with less emission taxation and emission control. In effect relocation reduces industry cost while removing the restriction to control emissions. Most economic papers I have read on the subject skip over this assuming multilateral agreements or glossing over this. Interestingly one european paper suggested the most efficient way of reducing emissions in europe was a drastic reduction in social welfare. The idea being that this puts strong downward pressures on wages and curbs consumption. All the papers pretty much agree that if the targets are set the same across all countries then some weaker economies will spiral lower.

[Devonian]

I think this is, fairly, OT:

"The UK dumps more household waste into landfill than any other country in the European Union, research by the Local Government Association shows....Between 2005/6 and 2006/7, the proportion of household waste which was recycled or composted rose from 27.1% to 30.7%, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

And the amount being sent to landfill fell from 17.9 million tonnes to 16.9 million tonnes. "

So, yes, we do chuck away vast quantities of 'stuff'. But, and I was surprised to read it, we have also been putting less waste into holes. So, progress can be made.

[Stratos Ferric]

I think this is, fairly, OT:

"The UK dumps more household waste into landfill than any other country in the European Union, research by the Local Government Association shows....Between 2005/6 and 2006/7, the proportion of household waste which was recycled or composted rose from 27.1% to 30.7%, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

And the amount being sent to landfill fell from 17.9 million tonnes to 16.9 million tonnes. "

So, yes, we do chuck away vast quantities of 'stuff'. But, and I was surprised to read it, we have also been putting less waste into holes. So, progress can be made.

The latest local government targets, replacing the previous CPA on which LAs were assessed (the star ratings system) includes key performance indicators for household refuse produced, proportion composted, and landfill.

There is increasing pressure on LAs (and other entities) to reduce waste, and this has been ongoing for a good few years now: for instance; water authorities can no longer take solid wastes from waste treatment to be dispersed on land, nor can raw sewage be dumped at sea.

The problem for LAs is finding other ways of disposing of waste that are both economic and eco-friendly: incineration doesn't always pass the test, but other technologies are emerging.

Keep watching this space - there's a long joined up chain working on reducing the burden at all stages. Dramatically cutting packaging might help, but that would also impact shelf-life. We can't have it all; not without paying more at any rate.

[VillagePlank]

I came across this idea, some time ago, and I knew it as Risk Homeostasis with reference to psychological properties of a human mind.

The premise goes something like this: 'the degree of risk-taking behaviour and the magnitude of loss ... are maintained over time, unless there is a change in the target level of risk' That is, a person is prepared to continue to take a risk until the expected benefits no longer outweigh the perceived likelyhood of personal discomfort. It doesn't take a genius to map this onto Jevon's paradox.

That is, in climate change terms, a person will continue to consume until that consumption presents a very uncomfortable outcome. This is what we see today - serious climate change problems are anticipated (by the median few) to be some decades away. It will, as someone has already said, be an 11th hour 59 minutes, and 59 second decision to change lifestyle. Or perhaps that should be 'Two Minutes To Midnight' ?

I should note that the author, Wilde, has been severly criticised for this model, but, in general terms, I think the overall premise, like Jevon's paradox, hold true.

[jethro]

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but as this is the most active place in the enviro section I thought I'd post it here.

Anyone fancy adding to this debate?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm

Edited November 12, 2007 by jethro

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think there are some flaws in this Jevron's Paradox though. For starters, it assumes that we're all obsessed with consuming as much as we can. In reality, that is in part a cultural thing; we live in a materialistic, possession-oriented world nowadays, but it hasn't always been that way, and just because it's that way now, does not mean that it can never change. There are, in reality, people out there who are happy not to get caught up in the 'keeping up with the Joneses' stuff.

For instance Jevron's Paradox, applied as an absolute, assumes many things about me, as an individual, that are manifestly false.

Secondly, if a person drives 3 hours per day in a car that does 40 miles to the gallon. If we increase that to 200 miles, the implication is that the person would then drive 15 hours per day, to make up for the cheaper cost. Doesn't sound feasible. In particular, we have an allied problem of congestion that escalates when people yank up their driving amounts. In essence, there is also a limit to the potential for consumption, though in most areas there is untapped potential demand.

That said, while I don't agree that it's 100% true, I do agree that there is some truth in it, and that there are serious questions to be raised, in circumstances where reducing pollution in one sector would most likely result in increased pollution in another. It essentially goes back to the point that it's no good having some token actions to be taken in certain countries; it needs global action.

I posted about this in another thread though: progress is more likely to be made if we maintain open minds to the possibility that things might be achievable, than if we assume limits and bind ourselves by them. We certainly won't avert climate disaster by accepting that we can't avoid the scenario of 11th hour action because Jevron's Paradox says so, although it's certainly the case that if we continue laissez-faire "business as usual", it is a highly probable scenario.

[VillagePlank]

Yes, TWS, it assumes that the set of possibilities is infinite. Clearly, in reality, the set is bound, primarily, by the finite aspect of time.

Edited November 12, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Stratos Ferric]

I came across this idea, some time ago, and I knew it as Risk Homeostasis with reference to psychological properties of a human mind.

The premise goes something like this: 'the degree of risk-taking behaviour and the magnitude of loss ... are maintained over time, unless there is a change in the target level of risk' That is, a person is prepared to continue to take a risk until the expected benefits no longer outweigh the perceived likelyhood of personal discomfort. It doesn't take a genius to map this onto Jevon's paradox.

That is, in climate change terms, a person will continue to consume until that consumption presents a very uncomfortable outcome. This is what we see today - serious climate change problems are anticipated (by the median few) to be some decades away. It will, as someone has already said, be an 11th hour 59 minutes, and 59 second decision to change lifestyle. Or perhaps that should be 'Two Minutes To Midnight' ?

I should note that the author, Wilde, has been severly criticised for this model, but, in general terms, I think the overall premise, like Jevon's paradox, hold true.

Risk works well in this scenario, though perhaps needs to be overlaid with one of my old favourites - commons theory. A good analogue for risk is behaviour of drivers with mobile phones: no amount of exhortation, and even the establishment of a fixed penalty have not done much to reduce drivers' use - the reason, people don't think they'll be caught. Commons argues that we'll take what gain we can without sharing pain. You can see why I tend to argue that behaviour will change only when Governments take collective action and that behaviour is enforced.

[Bobby]

I think there are some flaws in this Jevron's Paradox though. For starters, it assumes that we're all obsessed with consuming as much as we can. In reality, that is in part a cultural thing; we live in a materialistic, possession-oriented world nowadays, but it hasn't always been that way, and just because it's that way now, does not mean that it can never change. There are, in reality, people out there who are happy not to get caught up in the 'keeping up with the Joneses' stuff.

For instance Jevron's Paradox, applied as an absolute, assumes many things about me, as an individual, that are manifestly false.

Secondly, if a person drives 3 hours per day in a car that does 40 miles to the gallon. If we increase that to 200 miles, the implication is that the person would then drive 15 hours per day, to make up for the cheaper cost. Doesn't sound feasible. In particular, we have an allied problem of congestion that escalates when people yank up their driving amounts. In essence, there is also a limit to the potential for consumption, though in most areas there is untapped potential demand.

That said, while I don't agree that it's 100% true, I do agree that there is some truth in it, and that there are serious questions to be raised, in circumstances where reducing pollution in one sector would most likely result in increased pollution in another. It essentially goes back to the point that it's no good having some token actions to be taken in certain countries; it needs global action.

I posted about this in another thread though: progress is more likely to be made if we maintain open minds to the possibility that things might be achievable, than if we assume limits and bind ourselves by them. We certainly won't avert climate disaster by accepting that we can't avoid the scenario of 11th hour action because Jevron's Paradox says so, although it's certainly the case that if we continue laissez-faire "business as usual", it is a highly probable scenario.

I think you are misunderstanding - it doesn't assume anything about an individual - it deals with things on a global basis - so it doesn't assume that if you cut down in one area you must make up for it in another, rather that if you cut down in one area, that may free up resources at a cheaper price for someone else. It's also not some immutable law of nature, rather a general idea that efficiency / conservation applied by one person, or a country, frees up resources and resources at a lower price for for someone else or another country. It can be countered of course if every single person on the planet conserved but that is very unlikely one has to admit.

One this basis, it is entirely correct I think you have to agree?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Not 100% because it is assuming that if resources are freed up then people will definitely make use of 100% of the freed resources elsewhere. As I say, in the past, there have been periods where the population didn't make the maximum consumption of the resources; we may live in a materialistic society which trends towards that, but just because society is like that now, doesn't make it completely unavoidable.

It reminds me of the argument that it's pointless improving public transport because if we get more people to use public transport it will free up more road space and therefore traffic will regrow to fill the space.

I'm not denying that if we do nothing about it, it will happen. It's just that if we accept that it's unavoidable then there's absolutely no way that anything will ever be done about it, regardless of whether it's avoidable or not!

[Turnedoutniceagain]

I understand all that but there's not going to be a large number of nuclear plants in this country for many many years to come, perhaps decades. I don't think we have that much time. What if those Rooskies decide they don't want to give us our gas? We're hardly best friends with them, or the middle easterners. Anyway, offtopic now.

Hi Magpie, the sooner we can achieve nuclear self-sufficiency & stick 2 fingers up to Putin & his gang of thugs the better. Putin would love to be in the position where he can have the rest of Europe kow-towing to him.

After all, apart form natural resources, he's got nothing else. Name me an industry/discipline where the Russians lead the world ??

Ballet & Chess are about all I can think of.

[Stratos Ferric]

...Name me an industry/discipline where the Russians lead the world ??

Ballet & Chess are about all I can think of.

Russian doll making.

Vodka.

We'll never achieve energy self-sufficiency, even the most aggressive models suggest no more than 30% nuclear for the UK - it's currently around 15% if I remember rightly - in the medium term (our lifetimes). Russia may mess around with supply, but at the end of the day they need dollars, and also global goodwill, so there would probably be a limit to their capacity for playing 'hard ball'. Their supplies are of more importance in any case to the landlocked states of central Europe than they are to the UK.

The Government's energy strategy review will make clear the way forward, but expect renewables and nuclear to increase, perhaps with further investment in gas turbine stations; expect oil and coal to decline.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

The Government's energy strategy review will make clear the way forward....

Quote of the year :lol:

This Nu Labour shower don't know what they're doing next weekend, let alone 15 yrs time !!!

The sooner they stop pratting around with this wind energy nonsense the better, go nuclear & let's do it properly.

[jethro]

Quote of the year :lol: :lol: :lol:

This Nu Labour shower don't know what they're doing next weekend, let alone 15 yrs time !!!

The sooner they stop pratting around with this wind energy nonsense the better, go nuclear & let's do it properly.

Not only do you make bread, hotpot and real fires with wood chopped by your own fair hand, you talk a lot of sense too.

This energy crisis wrapped up as AGW has been simmering away for years, when will a government, of any persuasion, actually have the balls to do the only sensible thing possible. Wind, solar, hydro; it's all an idealistic drop in the ocean being promoted purely to sweeten the pill of the inevitable. The public is largely terrified of Nuclear, the only way they'll get it passed is to say we've got to cut Co2, we really have, so we'll try all these other alternatives first but surprise, surprise it's not enough, we just have to go nuclear folks. What a waste of time and money, meanwhile Putin is rubbing his hands with glee. Bloody madness!!!

[Stratos Ferric]

Not only do you make bread, hotpot and real fires with wood chopped by your own fair hand, you talk a lot of sense too.

This energy crisis wrapped up as AGW has been simmering away for years, when will a government, of any persuasion, actually have the balls to do the only sensible thing possible. Wind, solar, hydro; it's all an idealistic drop in the ocean being promoted purely to sweeten the pill of the inevitable. The public is largely terrified of Nuclear, the only way they'll get it passed is to say we've got to cut Co2, we really have, so we'll try all these other alternatives first but surprise, surprise it's not enough, we just have to go nuclear folks. What a waste of time and money, meanwhile Putin is rubbing his hands with glee. Bloody madness!!!

Jethro, with or without CO2 the traditional carbon sources are depleting: the medium term rush for nuclear hinges on a trade-off between management of risk and overcoming public perception and fears vs increasing cost of carbon based generation. In addition there are one or two strategic considerations which Governments of any persuasion refuse to compromise on regardless of cost: munitions production is one, a standing army is another, security of energy and food supply are two more.

Public fear is a funny thing. Offer somebody who's scared of flying a million pounds for doing so and you'd soon find the limits of fear. Ditto nuclear power: if it's a choice of lights going off or nuclear then most people would vote nuclear. We're a long way from the latter but the problem is not insurmountable. In Sweden objections were overcome by the Government offering to pay villages that accepted nuclear waste disposal facilities significant sums for community projects: there was no shortage of takers.

We all like to think we're altruistic or have tightly bound morals: the reality is rather more elastic.

Quote of the year :lol: :lol: :lol:

This Nu Labour shower don't know what they're doing next weekend, let alone 15 yrs time !!!

...

In which case then it's fortunate that they have a large cadre of civil servants on whom to fall back. They (actually, Blair) have vascillated on this, but it's a problem that does need addressing, not least because NETA (basically the energy market making process in the UK) has not been a magnificent success.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

Paradoxically, western democracy enshrined in the constitutional and institutional laws of 'egalite, fraternite, liberte' are exactly those which conspire to prevent governments from unilaterally taking action to curb emissions. No government will risk alienating its populous for fear of losing office. This sets up a very cautious route maps and long term targets that nobody will blink at because as others state, there is no immediate perceived risk to lifestyles.

Brinkmanship then ensues for succsesive politicians and their respective political parties, no one wants to be the harbinger of unpopular policy: Poll tax, prohibition, Patriot act?

Democratic goverments will act if it can be shown that the population demands action. Anything else is viewed as control and subversion.

At the 11th hour, rich nations will dig into their deep pockets to protect themselves, poor nations continue at others mercy.

ffO.

[VillagePlank]

We're a long way from the latter ...

It depends on whether a 'long-way' is a matter of days or weeks - which is exactly the scenario that would happen if our imports dried up. Nuclear is the only way forward, IMHO.

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Not only do you make bread, hotpot and real fires with wood chopped by your own fair hand, you talk a lot of sense too.

<_< You either have or you haven't !!

It depends on whether a 'long-way' is a matter of days or weeks - which is exactly the scenario that would happen if our imports dried up. Nuclear is the only way forward, IMHO.

Mine too. In the past it had a lot of bad press, but now's the time to go forwards again.