> [Jevons Paradox] It is not related to the cost of the final product. I don't believe that's correct. From the Wikipedia article: "Goods and services general

> [Jevons Paradox] It is not related to the cost of the final product. I don't believe that's correct. From the Wikipedia article: "Goods and services generally use more than one type of input (e.g. fuel, labour, machinery), and other factors besides input cost may also affect price. These factors tend to reduce the rebound effect, making the Jevons paradox less likely to occur." So the rebound effect is explicitly related to price elasticity, with the critical term being "price". If the cost of an input contributes less and less to the price of the final output, why would one expect it to have any effect? > Humans would happily use vast amounts of electricity 24x7x365 our entire lives if it is available. I really don't see any evidence for that statement (and indeed the parent article is providing clear evidence to the contrary). Humans want their needs attended to, and to the degree that electricity correlates to that, they'll have an appetite for electricity. To the degree that it doesn't, they won't. Nobody actually wants to use vast amounts of electricity simply for its own sake. Moreover, there are human desires that are inversely correlated with electricity usage, such as quiet, dark skies, etc. One would expect those desires to exert a downward pressure on electricity demand even if it were completely free. It seems obvious to me that what is happening here is that in essentially any good or service you can name, non-energy costs (labour, materials, land, etc.) are becoming a much more significant component of price, both due to decreasing energy costs and increasing energy efficiency, as well as intrinsic rises in the cost of labour and materials. This in turn limits the ability for the cost of electricity to significantly stimulate or repress demand. Seems pretty straightforward.