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

Showing Original Post only (View all)

OKIsItJustMe

(19,937 posts)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:17 PM Jan 2013

The 'rebound' effect of energy-efficient cars overplayed [View all]

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10473
[font face=Serif][font size=5]The 'rebound' effect of energy-efficient cars overplayed[/font]

January 23, 2013

[font size=3]The argument that those who have fuel-efficient cars drive them more and hence use more energy is overplayed and inaccurate, a University of California, Davis, economist and his co-authors say in a comment article published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Critics of energy efficiency programs in public policy debates have cited the “rebound effect” as a reason that hybrid cars and plug-in electric vehicles, for example, don’t really save energy in the long run.

The “backfire” concept, a more extreme version of “rebound,” actually stems from a 19[font size="1"]th[/font] century analysis in a book titled “The Coal Question,” by Stanley Jevons. The book hypothesized that energy use rises as industry becomes more efficient because people produce and consume more goods, according to the Nature article. But the article’s co-authors found that in the modern economy, the effect is not supported empirically.

“If a technology is cheaper to run, people may use it more. If they don’t, they can use their savings to buy other things that required energy to make. But evidence points to these effects being small — too small to erase energy savings from energy efficiency standards, for example,” said David S. Rapson, assistant professor of economics at UC Davis.

…[/font][/font]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/493475a
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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 #0