Jevons paradox

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Engraving of a view of Manchester from a distance, showing factories, smokestacks, and smoke.
Coal-burning factories in 19th-century Manchester, England. Improved technology allowed coal to fuel the Industrial Revolution, greatly increasing the consumption of coal.

In economics, the Jevons paradox (

resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.[1][2][3] Governments typically assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.[4]

In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[5][6]

The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency also lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which increases the quantity demanded. This may counteract (to some extent) the reduction in use from improved efficiency. Additionally, improved efficiency increases real incomes and accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, and the improved efficiency results in a faster rate of resource utilization.[6]

Considerable debate exists about the size of the rebound in energy efficiency and the relevance of the Jevons paradox to

green taxes) can be used to control the rebound effect.[8]

History

Engraving of William Stanley Jevons
William Stanley Jevons, after whom the effect is named

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. Watt's innovations made coal a more cost-effective power source, leading to the increased use of the steam engine in a wide range of industries. This in turn increased total coal consumption, even as the amount of coal required for any particular application fell. Jevons argued that improvements in fuel efficiency tend to increase (rather than decrease) fuel use, writing: "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth."[5]

At that time, many in Britain worried that coal reserves were rapidly dwindling, but some experts opined that improving technology would reduce coal consumption. Jevons argued that this view was incorrect, as further increases in efficiency would tend to increase the use of coal. Hence, improving technology would tend to increase the rate at which England's coal deposits were being depleted, and could not be relied upon to solve the problem.[5][6]

Although Jevons originally focused on coal, the concept has since been extended to other resources, e.g.,

water usage.[9] The Jevons paradox is also found in socio-hydrology, in the safe development paradox called the reservoir effect, where construction of a reservoir to reduce the risk of water shortage can instead exacerbate that risk, as increased water availability leads to more development and hence more water consumption.[10]

Cause

Main article: Rebound effect (conservation)
Diagram showing a shallow demand curve, where a drop in price from $100 to $80 causes quantity to increase from 10 to 14
Elastic Demand: A 20% increase in efficiency causes a 40% increase in travel. Fuel consumption increases and the Jevons paradox occurs.
Diagram showing a steep demand curve, where a drop in price from $100 to $80 causes quantity to increase from 10 to 11
Inelastic Demand: A 20% increase in efficiency causes a 10% increase in travel. The Jevons paradox does not occur.

Economists have observed that consumers tend to travel more when their cars are more fuel efficient, causing a 'rebound' in the

demand for fuel.[11] An increase in the efficiency with which a resource (e.g. fuel) is used causes a decrease in the cost of using that resource when measured in terms of what it can achieve (e.g. travel). Generally speaking, a decrease in the cost (or price) of a good or service will increase the quantity demanded (the law of demand). With a lower cost for travel, consumers will travel more, increasing the demand for fuel. This increase in demand is known as the rebound effect, and it may or may not be large enough to offset the original drop in fuel use from the increased efficiency. The Jevons paradox occurs when the rebound effect is greater than 100%, exceeding the original efficiency gains.[6]

The size of the direct rebound effect is dependent on the

price elastic), then fuel consumption would increase, and the Jevons paradox would occur. If demand is price inelastic, the amount of travel purchased would less than double, and fuel consumption would decrease. However, goods and services generally use more than one type of input (e.g. fuel, labour, machinery), and other factors besides input cost may also affect price. These factors tend to reduce the rebound effect, making the Jevons paradox less likely to occur.[6]

Khazzoom–Brookes postulate

Main article: Khazzoom–Brookes postulate

In the 1980s, economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes revisited the Jevons paradox for the case of society's

energy use. Brookes, then chief economist at the UK Atomic Energy Authority, argued that attempts to reduce energy consumption by increasing energy efficiency would simply raise demand for energy in the economy as a whole. Khazzoom focused on the narrower point that the potential for rebound was ignored in mandatory performance standards for domestic appliances being set by the California Energy Commission.[13][14]

In 1992, the economist Harry Saunders dubbed the hypothesis that improvements in

neoclassical growth model under a wide range of assumptions.[13][15]

According to Saunders, increased energy efficiency tends to increase energy consumption by two means. First, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use (the direct rebound effect). Second, increased energy efficiency increases real incomes and leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use for the whole economy. At the microeconomic level (looking at an individual market), even with the rebound effect, improvements in energy efficiency usually result in reduced energy consumption.[16] That is, the rebound effect is usually less than 100%. However, at the macroeconomic level, more efficient (and hence comparatively cheaper) energy leads to faster economic growth, which increases energy use throughout the economy. Saunders argued that taking into account both microeconomic and macroeconomic effects, the technological progress that improves energy efficiency will tend to increase overall energy use.[13]

Energy conservation policy

See also: Steady-state economy § Resource decoupling and the rebound effect
Part of a series on
Sustainable energy
A car drives past 4 wind turbines in a field, with more on the horizon
Energy conservation
Renewable energy
Sustainable transport

Jevons warned that fuel efficiency gains tend to increase fuel use. However, this does not imply that improved fuel efficiency is worthless if the Jevons paradox occurs; higher fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher material quality of life.[17] For example, a more efficient steam engine allowed the cheaper transport of goods and people that contributed to the Industrial Revolution. Nonetheless, if the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate is correct, increased fuel efficiency, by itself, will not reduce the rate of depletion of fossil fuels.[13]

There is considerable debate about whether the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate is correct, and of the relevance of the Jevons paradox to

environmental economists, doubt this 'efficiency strategy' towards sustainability, and worry that efficiency gains may in fact lead to higher production and consumption. They hold that for resource use to fall, efficiency gains should be coupled with other policies that limit resource use.[4][15][18] However, other environmental economists argue that, while the Jevons paradox may occur in some situations, the empirical evidence for its widespread applicability is limited.[19]

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 enact environmental policies or pursue fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[20][21] 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.[11][16][22] 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 crude oil depletion.[23] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a fuel tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[7]

The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency by itself may not reduce fuel use, and that

William Rees have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in natural capital rehabilitation."[7] By mitigating the economic effects of government interventions designed to promote ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological progress may make the imposition of these interventions more palatable, and more likely to be implemented.[24][25][26]

Other examples

Agriculture

Increasing the yield of a crop, such as wheat, for a given area will reduce the area required to achieve the same total yield. However, increasing efficiency may make it more profitable to grow wheat and lead farmers to convert land to the production of wheat, thereby increasing land use instead.[27]

See also

  • Andy and Bill's law, new software will always consume any increase in computing power that new hardware can provide
  • Diminishing returns
  • Downs–Thomson paradox, increasing road capacity can make traffic congestion worse
  • Tragedy of the commons, a phenomenon in which common resources to which access is not regulated tend to become depleted
  • Wirth's law, faster hardware can trigger the development of less-efficient software
  • Dutch Disease
    , strong revenue from a dominant sector renders other sectors uncompetitive and starves them

References

  1. doi:10.1080/15487733.2009.11908028
    .
  2. S2CID 156762601
    .
  3. ^ York, Richard (2006). "Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office" (PDF). Human Ecology Review. 13 (2): 143–147. Retrieved 2015-05-05.
  4. ^
    hdl:1942/22574
    .
  5. ^
    OCLC 464772008
    . Retrieved 2008-07-21.
  6. ^
    ISBN 978-1-84407-462-4
    .
  7. ^
    doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00077-8
    .
  8. ^ a b c Freire-González, Jaume; Puig-Ventosa, Ignasi (2015). "Energy Efficiency Policies and the Jevons Paradox". International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 5 (1): 69–79. Retrieved 29 May 2015.
  9. doi:10.1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.006
    .
  10. S2CID 134508048
    .
  11. ^ a b Small, Kenneth A.; Kurt Van Dender (2005-09-21). "The Effect of Improved Fuel Economy on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Estimating the Rebound Effect Using U.S. State Data, 1966–2001". Policy and Economics. Retrieved 2010-09-01.
  12. S2CID 3681642
    .
  13. ^
    S2CID 154484026
    .
  14. ISSN 0306-2619
    .
  15. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003
    .
  16. ^
    doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5
    .
  17. doi:10.1787/20792581
    . Retrieved 5 June 2015.
  18. ^ Owen, David (December 20, 2010). "Annals of Environmentalism: The Efficiency Dilemma". The New Yorker. pp. 78–.
  19. S2CID 3220092
    .
  20. ^ Potter, Andrew (2007-02-13). "Planet-friendly design? Bah, humbug". Maclean's. 120 (5): 14. Archived from the original on 2007-12-14. Retrieved 2010-09-01.
  21. ^ Strassel, Kimberley A. (2001-05-17). "Conservation Wastes Energy". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2005-11-13. Retrieved 2009-07-31.
  22. ^ Gottron, Frank (2001-07-30). "Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand?" (PDF). National Council for Science and the Environment. Retrieved 2012-02-24.
  23. doi:10.1002/aic.10747
    .
  24. ISBN 978-0-7923-6802-1. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help
    )
  25. S2CID 234020339
    .
  26. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109955
    .
  27. ^ "Drones, crops and Jevons' Paradox". Centre for Society, Technology and Values. 2016-08-22. Retrieved 2022-05-12.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jevons_paradox&oldid=1217537438"