Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)12. Whose reasoning is motivated? Mine? Yours? or the author’s?
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Talk of the Jevons paradox is getting tired. Energy efficiency, no matter how you slice it, is a good thing.[/font]
[font size=3]Eric Wesoff of GTM Research has a guest blog post on GEs Ecomagination site titled Will efficiency lead to more power consumption? It touches on the idea, first proposed by economist William Stanley Jevons in 1885, that technologies designed to make our use of energy more efficient work to increase, not decrease, overall power consumption. This Jevons paradox, or energy rebound effect, is often used by folks who want to undermine policy efforts aimed at promoting energy efficiency. Wesoff, it should be pointed out, is simply posing the question to encourage discussion.
Does the introduction of new energy-efficient technologies make us use more of something we might not otherwise use, thereby negating efficiency gains? There certainly is evidence that, for example, people drive more when theyre in more fuel-efficient vehicles. But beyond The Breakthrough Institute, its generally believed the rebound effect is in the area of 10 per cent and that there is still a healthy net benefit to introducing more efficiency into vehicles. Certainly, there are specific examples we can find that show the rebound effect is higher, but there are far more examples in my view where its likely to be far lower. I dont buy, for example, that introducing more efficient lighting technologies will lead us to leave the lights on more. Yes, communities and cities will grow and that will increase electricity demand for lighting, but on a per-capita basis will we use more? Maybe, for some, if the price of power stays the same or falls, but thats not the case. The fact is, the widespread introduction of LED lighting will lead to a dramatic overall reduction in energy use on a per capita basis, and we cant blame energy efficiency on growth that is likely to happen anyway.
[/font][/font]
[font size=3]Eric Wesoff of GTM Research has a guest blog post on GEs Ecomagination site titled Will efficiency lead to more power consumption? It touches on the idea, first proposed by economist William Stanley Jevons in 1885, that technologies designed to make our use of energy more efficient work to increase, not decrease, overall power consumption. This Jevons paradox, or energy rebound effect, is often used by folks who want to undermine policy efforts aimed at promoting energy efficiency. Wesoff, it should be pointed out, is simply posing the question to encourage discussion.
Does the introduction of new energy-efficient technologies make us use more of something we might not otherwise use, thereby negating efficiency gains? There certainly is evidence that, for example, people drive more when theyre in more fuel-efficient vehicles. But beyond The Breakthrough Institute, its generally believed the rebound effect is in the area of 10 per cent and that there is still a healthy net benefit to introducing more efficiency into vehicles. Certainly, there are specific examples we can find that show the rebound effect is higher, but there are far more examples in my view where its likely to be far lower. I dont buy, for example, that introducing more efficient lighting technologies will lead us to leave the lights on more. Yes, communities and cities will grow and that will increase electricity demand for lighting, but on a per-capita basis will we use more? Maybe, for some, if the price of power stays the same or falls, but thats not the case. The fact is, the widespread introduction of LED lighting will lead to a dramatic overall reduction in energy use on a per capita basis, and we cant blame energy efficiency on growth that is likely to happen anyway.
[/font][/font]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change [View all]
GliderGuider
Jan 2013
OP
Truthfully, telling me that a paper proves (among other things) that the “Jevons Paradox…is real”…
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2013
#10
Well, I'm not throwing up the impassioned defense, and the author just wrote a paper.
GliderGuider
Jan 2013
#15
Some Dilemma: Efficient Appliances Use Less Energy, Produce the Same Level of Service with Less…
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2013
#14
I doubt the general public would be able to understand this even if they wanted too.
limpyhobbler
Jan 2013
#7