|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jevons paradox article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Jevons 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.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Air conditioning example
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"
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
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.