4 ms·

I'm sorry if I offended you with the bizarro comment on the other thread. I have nothing against you and I think we actually on the same side. I read the Wikipe

I'm sorry if I offended you with the bizarro comment on the other thread. I have nothing against you and I think we actually on the same side. I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and I understand it. What would you propose? Less efficiency to have more pollution per useful work?

SilasX 14y ago
I'm pretty sure I explained that other policies must complement efficiency improvements, specifically penalizing the bad-thing-you-want-to-reduce e.g. with a tax. So you can ease up on the faux-naive questions -- maybe read the rest of original post that upset your worldview about fuel efficiency.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to impose environmental policies, or to increase fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[7][8] Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil.[11] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]
  - SilasX 14y ago
    >Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher Yes, the point I made from the beginning, except that I added that such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place! One step above copy-paste is analysis, and one step above that is understanding.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place! Love your work YodaBot!

SilasX 14y ago

I'm pretty sure I explained that other policies must complement efficiency improvements, specifically penalizing the bad-thing-you-want-to-reduce e.g. with a tax. So you can ease up on the faux-naive questions -- maybe read the rest of original post that upset your worldview about fuel efficiency.

youngerdryas 14y ago
The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to impose environmental policies, or to increase fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[7][8] Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil.[11] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]
- SilasX 14y ago
  >Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher Yes, the point I made from the beginning, except that I added that such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place! One step above copy-paste is analysis, and one step above that is understanding.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place! Love your work YodaBot!