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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OKIsItJustMe

(21,207 posts)
12. How about addressing the Nature article linked to by the OP?
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:57 PM
Jan 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/493475a
[font face=Serif][font size=3]…

Macroeconomic rebound effects are hard to pin down, but simple economic theory sets a limit. Standard assumptions linking supply and demand suggest that 'backfire' due to the price effect is impossible: if global demand for oil falls, the oil will become cheaper, so the incentive to produce it will be reduced. Less oil will be used overall, even though the cost is lower.

[font size=4]Complicated sums[/font]
The four rebound effects cannot simply be added together to give the combined effect, because the presence of one may erode others. For example, when both the direct and indirect apply, the result is less than the sum of the two because any direct rebound effect decreases the amount of money available to spend elsewhere. Macroeconomic models estimate total combined rebound effects to be in the range of 20–60%.

In sum, rebound effects are small and are therefore no excuse for inaction. People may drive fuel-efficient cars more and they may buy other goods, but on balance more-efficient cars will save energy.

Energy-efficiency measures should be on the policy menu to curb energy use and to address global warming. Stricter energy-efficiency legislation should be considered across all sectors, alongside options that are not subject to rebound effects, such as carbon pricing.[/font][/font]

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I guess we should try to make sure that any money savings from cheaper energy limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #1
True belivers in “Jevons’ Paradox” will tell you that such efforts would fail OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #2
It seems like more of an abstract philosophy question that a real world problem. limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #3
"It's not a natural law..." NoOneMan Jan 2013 #10
Preach it, brother! GliderGuider Jan 2013 #11
As long as there are people with unfulfilled needs and wants The2ndWheel Jan 2013 #4
And there we have it! (A true believer!) OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #6
Thanks for taking out my qualifying statements to make your point The2ndWheel Jan 2013 #24
No energy has yet been conserved. In this example we just have more consumption NoOneMan Jan 2013 #9
How about addressing the Nature article linked to by the OP? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #12
I did. Its based on a false premise NoOneMan Jan 2013 #14
Did you actually read the Nature article? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #17
This paper is akin to analyzing genetic drift in unicorn populations NoOneMan Jan 2013 #18
So, is that a yes? OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #19
I don't think you understand that I am not arguing about the red herring NoOneMan Jan 2013 #20
Once again, you need to start somewhere OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #21
"There is a large group of people who point to..." NoOneMan Jan 2013 #23
Invoking Jevons misses the point GliderGuider Jan 2013 #5
Except, that /it is all about Jevons…/ OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #7
I do things out of a wide variety of personal concerns GliderGuider Jan 2013 #8
“The point of making things more efficient is to allow the whole system to keep growing.” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 #13
It's not simply an article of faith. GliderGuider Jan 2013 #15
"This is an article of faith for you, but not necessarily true." NoOneMan Jan 2013 #16
At the age of 60 madokie Jan 2013 #22
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The 'rebound' effect of e...»Reply #12