Comments on: The Rebound Effect/Jevons Paradox: Not as Strong as Pseudo-Environmentalists Claim

By: NObamaisgoodbama

NObamaisgoodbama — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:52:00 +0000

This one we can agree on.
The so-called Jevons paradox is not a law. it assumes unlimited human consumption. There are limits to human demand and very few limits to technology.

By: Energy Efficiency Rocks — Rebound Effect Overblown

Energy Efficiency Rocks — Rebound Effect Overblown — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:01:26 +0000

[…] published a couple of posts on the less-than-concerning “rebound effect” (in particular, when it applies to energy efficiency). Nonetheless, its a popular topic in some […]

By: How Bad Ideas Keep Rebounding Into Public Discourse: The Rebound Effect and Its Refutation – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Mon, 16 May 2011 14:12:46 +0000

[…] covered the rebound effect here on CleanTechnica a couple months ago. The common argument of rebound effect enthusiasts is […]

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:16:14 +0000

wjv, i think you are confusing yourself here. if you have a village or city or country using energy more efficiently because they have insulated their homes and changed their light bulbs, that is not going to have such a significant effect that increased energy usage from reduced demand and lower prices is going to outweigh those energy savings. it just doesn’t calculate (follow the links to the true economists’ and statisticians’ analysis of this if you want to look at it in more detail).

we are seeing more energy consumption in developing countries because of their economic growth. don’t forget to account for that crucial detail

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:08:34 +0000

yeah, that was basically the purpose of the article (the latter part) as a number of journalists and blogs just repeat the false theory as if it is valid

By: Anderlan

Anderlan — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:53:58 +0000

The rebound effect is utterly, head-explodingly stupid. These people clearly must know that. We don’t need to worry about the fact that a think tank is spouting drivel. We need to find out if anyone is believing it, and ask them to think for 5 seconds.

By: wjv

wjv — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 06:55:30 +0000

Your analysis of Jevons’ Paradox here is quite misleading… Jevons’ Paradox does not necessarily predict that on an INDIVIDUAL level one will use more energy as technology increases in efficiency (although sometimes it could). No, Jevons wrote in 1865 about how much more coal England was using nationwide even as steam engines became more efficient. His crucial observation was that on a SOCIETAL scale more energy will be used as technology improves in efficiency.

This is because energy efficiency effectively makes energy cheaper. For instance, no one buys gasoline to have the smelly liquid, they buy gasoline so that they can have mobility (via cars). When cars can move you farther for the same amount of gasoline you are basically paying less to move any given distance.

So since the effect of efficiency is reduced price, more people can afford to consume it. This is Jevons’ Paradox; energy efficiency does not necessarily lead to more energy consumption per capita, but it leads to more consumers… many more consumers and therefore MORE NET ENERGY CONSUMPTION. And we see this playing out before our eyes as developing nations (China, India) ramp up their energy consumption.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:10:14 +0000

No, the Breakthrough Institute, which has been called a=out as such numerous times..

By: Min

Min — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:53:28 +0000

What’s a pseudo-environmentalist? Anyone who disagrees with you?

Are you familiar with the No True Scotsman logical fallacy?