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

(21,206 posts)
17. Did you actually read the Nature article?
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:39 PM
Jan 2013

Did you check out any of the references?

Like:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12053-009-9053-y

[font face=Serif]Energy Efficiency
November 2009, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 411-427

[font size=5]The macroeconomic rebound effect and the world economy[/font]
Terry Barker, Athanasios Dagoumas, Jonathan Rubin

[font size=4]Abstract[/font]

[font size=3]This paper examines the macroeconomic rebound effect for the global economy arising from energy-efficiency policies. Such policies are expected to be a leading component of climate policy portfolios being proposed and adopted in order to achieve climate stabilisation targets for 2020, 2030 and 2050, such as the G8 50% reduction target by 2050. We apply the global “New Economics” or Post Keynesian model E3MG, developing the version reported in IPCC AR4 WG3. The rebound effect refers to the idea that some or all of the expected reductions in energy consumption as a result of energy-efficiency improvements are offset by an increasing demand for energy services, arising from reductions in the effective price of energy services resulting from those improvements. As policies to stimulate energy-efficiency improvements are a key part of climate-change policies, the likely magnitude of any rebound effect is of great importance to assessing the effectiveness of those policies. The literature distinguishes three types of rebound effect from energy-efficiency improvements: direct, indirect and economy-wide. The macroeconomic rebound effect, which is the focus of this paper, is the combination of the indirect and economy-wide effects. Estimates of the effects of no-regrets efficiency policies are reported by the International Energy Agency in World Energy Outlook, 2006, and synthesised in the IPCC AR4 WG3 report. We analyse policies for the transport, residential and services buildings and industrial sectors of the economy for the post-2012 period, 2013–2030. The estimated direct rebound effect, implicit in the IEA WEO/IPCC AR4 estimates, is treated as exogenous, based on estimates from the literature, globally about 10%. The total rebound effect, however, is 31% by 2020 rising to 52% by 2030. The total effect includes the direct effect and the effects of (1) the lower cost of energy on energy demand in the three broad sectors as well as of (2) the extra consumers’ expenditure from higher (implicit) real income and (3) the extra energy-efficiency investments. The rebound effects build up over time as the economic system adapts to the higher real incomes from the energy savings and the investments.

…[/font][/font]


(Summary: There is a “rebound effect,” however, it is not 100%, let alone greater than 100%.)

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 #17