<DrumBeat: April 26, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: April 27, 2007>

172 comments on Efficiency Policy, Jevon’s Paradox, and the “Shadow” Rebound Effect

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jeffvail on April 26, 2007 - 11:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Westexas: I agree with your recommendation to raise energy taxes and negate the impact on poor and middle class by using them to replace the regressive payroll tax. My point here is this: let's not justify this by arguing that it will save energy. That family of 4 will save $56,000 a year. My guess is that they won't stuff it in a mattress--they'll spend it at Wal-mart, or to go to Hawaii, or other things that will use an equivalent amount of energy when one accounts for the total effect of that spending rippling through the economy. This tax MAY redistribute some of that energy consumption away from liquid fuels and toward other (coal, nuclear) sources, temporarily alleviating the liquid fuels crunch, but the result may actually be greater GHG emissions. At the least, it will give us a false sense that we, as a nation, are really doing something to address our overal energy consumption, and that may prove to be the most damaging effect when it comes to a real, "total energy" crunch--the populace may see this as "the boy who cried wolf."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bunyonhead on April 26, 2007 - 11:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

That's why I suggested hypthecation of the tax to be spend on sustainable renewable energy projects (wind, solar, pump storage, Engineer Poet schemes http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independenc..., etc)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on April 26, 2007 - 11:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My point here is this: let's not justify this by arguing that it will save energy.

I agree. I have forgotten the exact numbers, but as our fuel efficiency in the US has climbed, total miles driven have climbed even faster.

You can see it with the example I cited. For the $60,000 that the family was spending on four Hummers driven 10,000 miles per year per vehicle (at $2.50 per gallon), they could pay for 10 Civics driving 10,000 miles per year per car, even at $5 gasoline.

I've put it this way: "We have to kill consumption before consumption kills us."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
memmel on April 26, 2007 - 1:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So at the end of the day with our current economic system your only going to really save energy when its not increasing.

This makes sense. My opinion is our current economic system cannot be retrofitted to work in a energy constrained world since the whole system is designed to optimize consumption.

I don't see band aids regardless of their nature is effective.
The only way out is to make holding money more valuable then spending it which mean relentless real monetary deflation and resource price inflation. The price of finished goods and services would be balanced on the two apposing trends.

This means going back to a world with little credit available. If you don't deflate in a resource constrained world you tend towards hyperinflation and currency collapse.

Resource price inflation tends to make holding the resource more valuable while monetary deflation causes the opposite.
The outcome of the two conditions is that efficiency is the real wealth. Since using less resources saves money and monetary deflation makes saving this money a good bet.
The real economy (physical goods) will shrink to probably a tenth of what we have today if that excluding base food production. Food would make a large part of the total economy at that point say 50%. Services based on renewable resources or knowledge would be the growth area along with recycling and production of longer lasting repairable goods.

This is not the world we live in now. My guess is hyperinflation before we flip to a sustainable economic model but we won't be able to transition our current one.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
markincalgary on April 26, 2007 - 6:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sure what you say is true about a gasoline/diesel tax, but if you want to reduce GHG emissions you might as well just tax GHG emissions. Since TOD is focussed on a looming liquid fuel crisis, we're talking about a liquid fuel tax. (Personally, I'd rather tax liquid fuel use via a GHG emission tax.)

I used to be big on Jevon's Paradox, but then I tried to apply it to a reduction in tobacco use via a tobacco tax.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
btu on April 26, 2007 - 7:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

As the price of energy increases along with the cost of all goods and services, the amount of disposable income will decrease. The Hummer family may spend the savings at Wal-Mart, but the average family will consume less energy because they can't afford anything but the necessities.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.