The Jevons Paradox describes not just individual responses to lower prices, but the overall market response. Which at its largest expanse is total global demand.
By way of analogy, the total industrialised world as of 1900 was mostly the US, UK, France, and Germany, with a few odd other millions from Canada, Australia, and bits of Europe.
Not only did those 200 million or so souls see a tremendous personal increase in services (and resources) consumed, but:
- The population of industrialised nations swelled by a factor of about 5, to 1 billion (the G7 + EU).
- Another two billions grew and increased economic activity in China and India.
- The Rest of the World grew to another 5 billions.
The G7 per capita GDP is about $40k. Depending on what figures you look at, China lands somewhere between about $8k - $14k/person. The rest of the world (including India) is lucky to hit an average of $5k, or about 1/8th the G7, whilst being 5 times its population.
Put another way, raising the RoTW to G7 standards would swallow 40x current global economic activity, and that's presuming the G7 + EU hold still, something few economic models allow for.
Or: Jevons has a lot of mileage yet.
Regards Google's "zero carbon" datacentres: if you don't account for the rest of the market's response, this simply lowers costs for other entrants to make claims which Google have effectively abandoned, absent some means of otherwise increasing prices. Fighting resource utilisation by increasing efficiency alone is like fighting for peace or fcking for virginity. It tends to self defeat.
To decrease overall* utilisation, you've got to increase costs or decrease demand. Taxes, sink utlisation charges (e.g., carbon cap-and-trade), or some form of suasion against resource utilisation, might work. Efficiency itself simply lowers costs, which is to say, increases the supply function, and moves total quantity consumed up.
By way of analogy, the total industrialised world as of 1900 was mostly the US, UK, France, and Germany, with a few odd other millions from Canada, Australia, and bits of Europe.
Not only did those 200 million or so souls see a tremendous personal increase in services (and resources) consumed, but:
- The population of industrialised nations swelled by a factor of about 5, to 1 billion (the G7 + EU).
- Another two billions grew and increased economic activity in China and India.
- The Rest of the World grew to another 5 billions.
The G7 per capita GDP is about $40k. Depending on what figures you look at, China lands somewhere between about $8k - $14k/person. The rest of the world (including India) is lucky to hit an average of $5k, or about 1/8th the G7, whilst being 5 times its population.
Put another way, raising the RoTW to G7 standards would swallow 40x current global economic activity, and that's presuming the G7 + EU hold still, something few economic models allow for.
Or: Jevons has a lot of mileage yet.
Regards Google's "zero carbon" datacentres: if you don't account for the rest of the market's response, this simply lowers costs for other entrants to make claims which Google have effectively abandoned, absent some means of otherwise increasing prices. Fighting resource utilisation by increasing efficiency alone is like fighting for peace or fcking for virginity. It tends to self defeat.
To decrease overall* utilisation, you've got to increase costs or decrease demand. Taxes, sink utlisation charges (e.g., carbon cap-and-trade), or some form of suasion against resource utilisation, might work. Efficiency itself simply lowers costs, which is to say, increases the supply function, and moves total quantity consumed up.