Try applying it to this op-ed by William Ruckelshaus and K. C. Golden.
Here's enough to get you started.
Here in the Northwest states, three decades of investment in energy efficiency are delivering impressive results: We're harvesting enough energy savings to power more than four cities the size of Seattle. Those efficiency upgrades are saving us more than $2 billion a year on our energy bills. We're squeezing more work out of our existing hydropower, and adding new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal power. Renewable energy isn't "alternative" in the Northwest — it's the backbone of our power system, and the reason why we enjoy some of the cleanest and most affordable electricity in the nation.
The region's growing clean-energy economy isn't just about energy efficiency and renewable-energy companies. It's Boeing gaining a competitive edge by marketing the world's most efficient commercial aircraft while developing sustainable fuels for aviation.
By now, I assume that everyone knows about Jevons Paradox, but in case you need a review, you can find one here. Incidentally, I'm not sure that economists would find it particularly paradoxical.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Yes, the co-author is that William Ruckelshaus, the man who ignored the recommendations of his scientific advisors and banned DDT.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 09, 2012 01:38 PM | Email ThisI don't think this proves the case you want it to. Either your implying energy diversity is bad, because it promotes industry efficiency, or your implying its bad because its not the fix that government regulation provides.
I can't really tell, because you linked to content that didn't support your premise, without a strong op-ed on it.
The biggest government subsidy people use, ( or welfare if you like ) is driving. from the general fund paying for roads, auto industry bailouts and rebates ( cash for clunkers ) to our military being motivated to keep international oil prices low ( rather than depending on domestic sources or technology ) nearly every level is subsidized. Letting the true market price of driving come forward would fix many issues overnight.
Posted by: meanie on June 9, 2012 02:08 PMThe Jevons Paradox has nothing to do with the passage you quoted. The passage praises money savings due to increased efficiency, and money savings and cleaner air due to renewable energy sources. The passage doesn't suggest that consumption declined due to increased efficiency, which is what the Jevons Paradox deals with.
The Jevons Paradox is real, but it doesn't apply here. Saying it does is as ridiculous as saying that Laffer Curve, which is applicable to some very rare situations, has had any relevance to the US income tax code in the past 40 years. Surely no one here would fall for such silliness.
Posted by: Bruce on June 9, 2012 03:04 PMBut he was wrong about DDT and he is wrong about "climate change".
He also doesn't understand that the continued availability of cheap energy is a necessity to enable billions of humans to hope to enjoy the standard of living that he has.
Posted by: patrick on June 9, 2012 07:23 PM"By now, I assume that everyone knows about Jevons Paradox, but in case you need a review..."
What, am I supposed to feel dumb and uninformed? Apparently, by now, everyone knows about this. Oh, surely. "What, you haven't heard? About Jevons Paradox? Oh, how odd. I thought everyone knew by now. I would explain it to you but I can't be bothered. Why don't you ask Siri on your iPhone 4S. She'll direct you to the wikipedia entry."
Sounds like this year's version of "Occam's Razor." An obscure philosophical idea that becomes an incredibly popular, faddish discussion topic at urban intellectual cocktail parties and hipster bars like Linda's. Not because it's particularly exciting, but more to give the people discussing it an opportunity to pat each other on the back for their exceptional intellectual awareness.
Posted by: AD on June 9, 2012 11:05 PM