Talk:Jevons paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good articleJevons paradox has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 14, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
August 31, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Air conditioning example[edit]

This article lacks real-world examples comprehensible to the average reader who has just encountered some kind of quack out of context citation of Jevons.

There are some very good lists of references debunking it in different applications. That one linked includes an air conditioning example, which appears on analysis to actually not demonstrate Jevons, though it is claimed to have.

Neoclassical economics & lists of ways to overcome the "paradox"[edit]

This "paradox" relies rather completely on axioms from neoclassical economics, such as demand being elastic with cost of supply. This is clearly not the case in any modern economy, where liabilities/externalities, absolute bans on some technologies, taxes, etc., apply. The article needs a clearer list of ways the Paradox is overcome in actual policy:

  • taxes on both inefficient technologies & fuel, so that efficiency gains can be collected & spent on other efficiencies
  • outright bans on inefficient obsolete technologies or those with inherent negative side effects / externalities / risk
  • education campaigns that stress the value of overall efficiencies, such as savings on power grid construction or preventing water outages, which dampen any tendency to use more simply because it's cheap enough, redirecting savings to something other than consumption

should be rewritten to not mention "peak oil"[edit]

Also this article mentions "peak oil" which is a deprecated concept generally. There is no chance whatsoever that oil would "run out" or even become relatively difficult to access before the negative effects of its use (plastics in the ocean, global warming, etc.) forced us to stop using it. So there is absolutely no economic argument that should mention "peak oil" at all, it's entirely moot. It ought to be the subject of a general purge on Wikipedia. "The Stone Age ended, but not for lack of stones" as a Saudi oil minister was reputed to say. Whether he did or not, it's true, oil will not end for lack of oil.