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

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)

3. It seems like more of an abstract philosophy question that a real world problem.

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:09 PM

Jan 2013

There are some interesting similar real world issues.

What if somebody saves $100 a month with their new fuel efficient car? So now they decide to buy that new Hummer. Someone else might decide to use the money to insulate their home. Someone else could invest it in the stock market or hand control of their money over to a financial planner who will look for the most profitable investment.

It's not a natural law, but individuals do not necessarily make wise decisions with their share of the money savings that flow from better fuel economy. That's why the government should make sure to capture that new surplus generated by increased efficiency, and spend it on stuff that makes sense. Like home insulation instead of Humvees.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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