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: Jevons: a 19th Century Zeno [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)41. Can you document this? (i.e. that more efficient cars lead to more consumption.)
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/green-cars-jevons-paradox
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Do Green Cars Just Make People Drive More?[/font]
By Kiera Butler | Mon Mar. 7, 2011 2:30 AM PST
[font size=3]
Furthermore, Matt Mattila, who leads RMI's effort to help cities transition to electric cars, points out that the limiting factor for driving isn't fuel consumption, but rather time spent behind the weel. "Drivers generally don't know their vehicles' fuel economy, but if they did see it improve, they wouldn't 'balance' that out by trying to find more time in the vehicle," says Mattila.
Building on that idea, Simon Mui, a scientist who studies electric cars at the Natural Resources Defense Council, calls the notion of attributing increased driving to gains in fuel efficiency "mind-boggling." Because of population increase, rising incomes, sprawl, and increased car ownership rates, vehicle miles traveled has gone up both in the US and abroad, says Mui. "This has happened even when fuel economy was flat (or even worsening because of SUVs) in the US over the past three decades."
Still, there's a kernel of truth to the Jevons Paradox argument. When talking about fuel-efficient cars, it's important to distinguish between the rebound effect and the backlash effect. The rebound effectwhere some savings are lost because of increased useis well-documented, and regulators take it into account: Last year, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assumed a 10 percent rebound effect when they made their final ruling on emissions standards. But a backlash effectwhere increased car use actually cancels out any savings gained by efficiencyhas never been documented.
[/font][/font]
By Kiera Butler | Mon Mar. 7, 2011 2:30 AM PST
[font size=3]
Furthermore, Matt Mattila, who leads RMI's effort to help cities transition to electric cars, points out that the limiting factor for driving isn't fuel consumption, but rather time spent behind the weel. "Drivers generally don't know their vehicles' fuel economy, but if they did see it improve, they wouldn't 'balance' that out by trying to find more time in the vehicle," says Mattila.
Building on that idea, Simon Mui, a scientist who studies electric cars at the Natural Resources Defense Council, calls the notion of attributing increased driving to gains in fuel efficiency "mind-boggling." Because of population increase, rising incomes, sprawl, and increased car ownership rates, vehicle miles traveled has gone up both in the US and abroad, says Mui. "This has happened even when fuel economy was flat (or even worsening because of SUVs) in the US over the past three decades."
Still, there's a kernel of truth to the Jevons Paradox argument. When talking about fuel-efficient cars, it's important to distinguish between the rebound effect and the backlash effect. The rebound effectwhere some savings are lost because of increased useis well-documented, and regulators take it into account: Last year, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assumed a 10 percent rebound effect when they made their final ruling on emissions standards. But a backlash effectwhere increased car use actually cancels out any savings gained by efficiencyhas never been documented.
[/font][/font]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
97 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
Jevons was making an observation about human psychology, not math or physics
phantom power
Jan 2013
#1
I don't think there's any implied statement about price of resources going down...
phantom power
Jan 2013
#12
Money made available as a result of efficiency doesn't need to be created by fiat.
GliderGuider
Jan 2013
#26
The $100 worth of energy I “saved” would have come from resource extraction
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2013
#43
I will agree that improving efficiency does not correlate well with a society using less energy
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2013
#67
Yes - fewer energy sources, fewer manufactured goods, greater transportation costs,
GliderGuider
Jan 2013
#69
“A better example would be people simply switching to a lower wattage traditional bulb…”
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2013
#25
Those studies were done in the early 80s regarding efficiency standards implemented in late 70s
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#51
"Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency Standards for Household Appliances."
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#55
Can you document this? (i.e. that more efficient cars lead to more consumption.)
OKIsItJustMe
Jan 2013
#41
The specific Jevons-style rebound is probably less significant than general growth
GliderGuider
Jan 2013
#30
In any case, it isn't a strict "rule" but an explanation of observed market behavior
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#31
Fine, but what's relevant to you is not close to being relevant to society as a whole
wtmusic
Jan 2013
#94
Presuming that society on a whole will not lower the carbon-intensity of their energy
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#96
In general, we are going about pretending we don't even have to think about these matters
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#90
With transglobal corporate monsters ruling all, Zeno's paradox certainly applies to you and me...
Peace Patriot
Jan 2013
#76