I highly doubt that Jevons paradox is going to apply much here (and the data in the article seems to show this), simply because lighting was already cheap enoug

I highly doubt that Jevons paradox is going to apply much here (and the data in the article seems to show this), simply because lighting was already cheap enough so that most people never gave a second thought to using lightbulbs (indeed, ask any parent that has ever yelled "turn off the lights" to their kids). Jevons paradox applies when there is strong demand for a good, but it is too expensive to be widely deployed, but a decrease in price of that good then allows many more uses of it. While sure there may be some edge cases (a sibling comment mentioned big flood lights for their yard), it's not like most people had dark rooms before where they thought "darn, if only light were cheaper"... > A decent amount of the hypothetical savings from more efficient lighting was eaten by having even more lumens than previously as quality of light upgrades I'm not sure what you mean by "quality of light upgrades". To be honest I hate the quality of light that LEDs give off. It's too "white bright", and I much prefer the quality of incandescent bulbs. I usually have LEDs much less brighter than they can go because otherwise I feel like there are floodlights in my house. Relatedly, I hate the switch to LED headlights. They're much too bright for oncoming drivers, and many car brands position them much too high.