3 ms·

> ..but, being so cheap, it also enabled crazier ways of using fuel […] See: > In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons' effect) occurs

> ..but, being so cheap, it also enabled crazier ways of using fuel […] See: > In economics, the Jevons paradox (/ˈdʒɛvənz/; sometimes Jevons' effect) occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises as falling cost of use increases demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics.[2] However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[3] […] > The Jevons paradox was first described by the English economist William Stanley Jevons in his 1865 book The Coal Question. Jevons observed that England's consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced the Watt steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of the coal-fired steam engine from Thomas Newcomen's earlier design. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

zaroth 5y ago
Isn’t increasing consumption through increased efficiency (decreased cost) a crucial factor for how standards of living are raised? I don’t see how this is a paradox.
- Majromax 5y ago
  The paradox arises because cost per unit fuel does not decrease because of use-efficiency. Whether your car gets 20 miles to the gallon or 50, you pay the same price per gallon at the pump. Therefore, in an "all other things being equal" sense, you'd expect more efficient use of the fuel to lower total consumption, since the same desired effect is achievable with less input. Switching from incandescent lights to LED lighting should lower your electricity bill. The paradox arises because of an income effect or "standard of living" effect, as you note, and it arises as "all other things being equal" gives way to a new equilibrium. It's not guaranteed to happen -- I imagine few people's electricity bills have gone up because they use so much more LED lighting than incandescent lighting -- but it can happen.

zaroth 5y ago

Isn’t increasing consumption through increased efficiency (decreased cost) a crucial factor for how standards of living are raised? I don’t see how this is a paradox.

Majromax 5y ago
The paradox arises because cost per unit fuel does not decrease because of use-efficiency. Whether your car gets 20 miles to the gallon or 50, you pay the same price per gallon at the pump. Therefore, in an "all other things being equal" sense, you'd expect more efficient use of the fuel to lower total consumption, since the same desired effect is achievable with less input. Switching from incandescent lights to LED lighting should lower your electricity bill. The paradox arises because of an income effect or "standard of living" effect, as you note, and it arises as "all other things being equal" gives way to a new equilibrium. It's not guaranteed to happen -- I imagine few people's electricity bills have gone up because they use so much more LED lighting than incandescent lighting -- but it can happen.