It is assumed that an increase in efficiency when consuming a resource generates lower pressure on the market, enables a healthier use of its reserves, reduces consumption, and by extension the price. However, history has taught us that the exact opposite can happen, with a marked rebound in demand. When that “rebound” becomes much greater than calculated, we end up in the storm of the Jevons paradox: technological progress does not guarantee a reduction in resource consumption.
“Efficiency.” A magical word if there ever was one. Politicians and economists invoke it almost daily to justify or defend high-profile changes that affect people's lives. But what is efficiency? Do we really understand it? How complex can it become? If we want some answers, we must first travel back to the mid-19th century and find a copy of “The Coal Question”, a work published by economist William Stanley Jevons.
At that time, many Britons believed that coal reserves were running out, and that the solution required a leap in efficiency. In his text, Jevons describes that after the appearance of James Watt's steam engine, coal consumption became more efficient.
In turn, this enabled the use of the machine in a greater number of industries, skyrocketing demand and coal consumption even when individual applications needed less fuel. Efficiency exacerbated the problem. Welcome to the Jevons Paradox.
Jevons Paradox: More with Less?
Even though the original example is more than 150 years old, the paradox not only remains firm but has found its place in other areas. Several governments have launched initiatives or laws requiring more efficient cars.
Initially, fuel demand falls, and the price trend is downward. However, that low price stimulates the idea of traveling more, driving demand again. If the rebound reaches the point of exceeding the gains obtained through an increase in efficiency, we are in the worst of the paradox.
A good example is found in the CAFE standard for “fuel economy” presented by the US government in 1975 after the effects of the Arab oil embargo. The balance of CAFE is still positive, but fuel consumption continues to rise, as does the distance traveled, the number of cars, the average weight and power.
Logically, the Jevons paradox has detractors and defenders. Among the former we find environmentalists. Efficiency is one of their priority objectives. Any negative interpretation is an invitation to conflict, and they accuse the paradox of being an excuse to do nothing.
On the other hand, proponents of degrowth see the paradox as a kind of Holy Grail that forces us to do a deeper analysis of technological progress.
And the final question is: What do you think? Should we continue our efforts to consume less, or respect the possibility of the paradox and be “more efficient with our efficiency”?
Source: The New Yorker
