While calling this a paradox is a useful mnemonic, it isn't a paradox. The drive for efficiency is to increase consistency and reliability. We make things more efficient, so we can rely upon it. Invention is the mother of necessity. When you enter a building, do you use the door, or the window? Unfortunately, this is reason the drive for efficiency as a solution for environmental issues is not really a solution. It is also the reason this is a socially acceptable approach. It is consistent with our standard approach to the use of natural resources since. forever. business interests have no problem adopting this non solution because being efficient is the basic approach.
Just look at the vast amount of electricity being used to power these massive data centers not to mention all the construction materials along with sterilizing the site with buildings
The Jevons Paradox reflects the tendency to purchase more of a desirable product only so long as the consumer perceives a need for more. For example, if McDonalds offers a special on Big Macs, people might buy two Big Macs instead of one, but they won't buy three or four -- two is enough. In the same fashion, LED lighting has made lighting more efficient, and I increased the total amount of light in the house in response. But there's an upper limit to how much lighting I want in my house. So, yes, my energy use for LEDs has gone up -- but only until I reach my upper limit.
Will EVs lead people to drive greater distances? Perhaps, but the primary constraint on driving distance for many people is the time expense, not the dollar expense. But what will happen as self-driving technologies improve? Will people jump in their car to travel long distances? Very possibly.
While calling this a paradox is a useful mnemonic, it isn't a paradox. The drive for efficiency is to increase consistency and reliability. We make things more efficient, so we can rely upon it. Invention is the mother of necessity. When you enter a building, do you use the door, or the window? Unfortunately, this is reason the drive for efficiency as a solution for environmental issues is not really a solution. It is also the reason this is a socially acceptable approach. It is consistent with our standard approach to the use of natural resources since. forever. business interests have no problem adopting this non solution because being efficient is the basic approach.
Just look at the vast amount of electricity being used to power these massive data centers not to mention all the construction materials along with sterilizing the site with buildings
The Jevons Paradox reflects the tendency to purchase more of a desirable product only so long as the consumer perceives a need for more. For example, if McDonalds offers a special on Big Macs, people might buy two Big Macs instead of one, but they won't buy three or four -- two is enough. In the same fashion, LED lighting has made lighting more efficient, and I increased the total amount of light in the house in response. But there's an upper limit to how much lighting I want in my house. So, yes, my energy use for LEDs has gone up -- but only until I reach my upper limit.
Will EVs lead people to drive greater distances? Perhaps, but the primary constraint on driving distance for many people is the time expense, not the dollar expense. But what will happen as self-driving technologies improve? Will people jump in their car to travel long distances? Very possibly.