Environment & Energy

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)

23. "There is a large group of people who point to..."

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:35 PM

Jan 2013

Who are these people? Do they have a name for their group? Any cool logos? Are you sure?

It seems like there are a large group of people who poke holes at a 19th century observation to prove via contradiction we will one day consume less energy. That is a fallacious assertion that is inconsistent with all data we have on the matter.

Jevon's paradox (and Khazzoom–Brookes postulate) isn't a law. Its not meant to prove anything--that's what stats are for after we fuck up. Instead, its an explanation of contradictory, unintended consequences of action in a complex system (and evolving system, that now has future markets and all sorts of interventions). Invoking it is a way to say "are you sure that is going to work?" or "that isn't what's been happening so far" to the faith-based masses that drive consumption forward

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 'rebound' effect of energy-efficient cars overplayed [View all] OKIsItJustMe Jan 2013 OP

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