Talk:Jevons paradox/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Current Event November 2009

The Jevons Paradox is mentioned in this recent discussion: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/28/1910250/Modeling-the-Economy-As-a-Physics-Problem. The discussion is associated with a paper in the journal Climatic Change described here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm. The full text of the paper is available here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/?Content+Status=Accepted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.97.173 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Add link to Economics of global warming ?

Add link to Economics of global warming ? 99.155.157.58 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Was fuel efficiency really the main factor in the increased coal consumption?

1) Atmospheric steam engines were employed allmost exclusively in stationary applications. Their efficiency increased with size. This made them unsuitable for driving vehicles - trains and ships- since in these applications the weight of the engine and the weight of fuel store is crucial. Watt´s engine lead not only to more use of steam engines in already existing applications but enabled the steam engine to be used in applications which would not be possible with atmospheric engine not only for price reasons but also for weight reasons. For the same reason of weight of fuel and engine later steam engine was found unsuitable for aviaton.

2) Coal was increasingly used in the 19th century for purposes other than as a fuel for engines - heating, gas for lighting, iron production etc. --Georgius (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

====basic situational logic====

If you describe a consumption/manufacturing situation as a function of time and then go on to say that a reduction in the price of the consumption cost is a good idea for the situation at that point in time; and was Henry Ford's goal in the manufacture of automobiles, "so that everybody could afford one". But the idea that decreased cost automatically results in increased consumption does not logically derive from the considered situation, but rather from the dynamics of the ensuing time period. And we can argue that there ought to be cheap medicines to cure specific illnesses, so that neither the illnesses nor the medicine will be needed in the future.WFPM (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Graph text in error.

The graph showing the consequences under "inelastic demand" STILL shows increased consumption, just lesser increase than under "elastic demand". That use does not double with halving of price does not mean that use hasn't increased! The total area under the curve has, however, gone down, which means that less $$ is SPENT overall. The Jevons Paradox does not say that more will be spent, only that more will be used. E.g.; Say the electricity demand in a particular area is 1 Meg-hour per month (10^3 = 1,000 kwh), when the cost is 10¢/kwh. That means $10^2 = $100 is spent on power each month. A pocket fission plant is installed in the neighborhood, and sells power at 1¢/kwh. Demand (we'll postulate) doubles, so 2 Mwh = 2,000 kwh is used, now costing just $20. So the expenditure has dropped, but USAGE has still increased (doubled). Which is all that Jevons predicts. So the caption and explanation of the second graph is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianFH (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the horizontal axis of the graph is showing the demand for work, not the demand for energy. If energy efficiency doubles (and price remains unchanged), that also means that the cost per unit of work halves. If, in the inelastic demand graph, the quantity demanded of work less than doubles, that means the the quantity demanded of energy falls, since you'd have to double the demand for work to use the same amount of energy. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I've a feeling that BrianFH is not the first to have been confused over this. Any suggestions for how to change the graph and/or the wording so that it's less confusing? I still have the originals somewhere and can change as needed. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's more of a Catch-22.

The purpose of efficiency is to reduce consumption. However efficiency improvements historically lead to additional consumption over the long term. So by attempting to reduce the consumption, it actually increases.

I disagree. The primary purpose of increased efficiency is to reduce costs. To draw any conclusions about long term consumption without more carefully looking at the context is premature. --Flatline 12:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Also disagree. The purpose of inefficiency is to reduce costs so that you can consume more. Consuming more leads to more utility. Utility maximization is our ultimate goal. There's no catch-22.199.111.188.10 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC

Increased efficiency does reduce costs, but it does so by decreasing the quantity of energy use. So it achieves cost reduction through consumption reduction.

You're confusing the goal with the means. The goal is to reduce costs. Often, but not always, the means is to reduce fuel consumption.
For example, if an engine could be built that required no maintanence ever, but consumed twice the fuel, there are people who would switch to it in a heartbeat even though it's less efficient. This is because for some applications, maintanence is a bigger expense than fuel.
Alternatively, if an engine was developed that burned half the fuel, but cost significantly more to manufacture, people would only be interested if it ran long enough and maintanence was cheap enough that the efficiency gains would eventually pay for the difference between the new engine and a conventional one. If the engine was too expensive to maintain or would fail irrepairably before the break-even point, nobody would buy it even though its use would reduce consumption. --Flatline 20:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Does this "cost analysis" factor in the extra polution "costs" and need for extra fuel capacity and transoprtation "costs" that result from this twice as inefficient yet maintanence free engine? Costs to the comsumer or everyone are nevertheless costs, right? How do you reconcile fuel costs with say engine mechanic salary costs, are they truly comparable entities? zen master T 23:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you are talking about the problem of externalities? --Mathish 16:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Comparing fuel costs with engine mechanic salary costs is easy since with any mature engine design, efficiencies and maintenance schedules (including parts and downtime) are well known. All other costs are considered only if they are paid by the owner (for this is how all capital expense decisions are made). This includes any liability associated with the decision (for example, if a particular engine causes cancer in people close to it, you can be sure that that liability will have a cost assigned to it when the analysis is made. Same with pollution.). --Flatline 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the reason it is considered a paradox is that most people don't expect it; for most people its counter-intuitive. Their thinking gets no further than 'an increase in efficiency in a system is good'. It IS good, but it is only when your thinking leads you across the boundary of that system that you realise the efficiency has most probably led to an increase in consumption. The use of the word 'paradox' is symptomatic of most people's inexperience in systems thinking. Or to put it another way; "it's only a 'paradox' if you aren't expecting it". The discipline of sustainability would would be greatly improved if we started thinking in systems' terms, then we would expect the Jevons effect, it wouldn't seem a paradox and we'd be ready to respond (instead of standing around wondering why we are bumping up against ecological tipping points!). Increasing efficiency is essential for sustainability, but its not sufficient! Grbrowne (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed Argument

The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may actually increase fuel use.

Really? By who? Jevons paradox in no way shows that energy conservation is futile, it shows that increasing efficiency may not lead to increased conservation. It shows that increasing energy efficiency and technological advances may be futile, not all energy conservation. Unless this can be sourced, it should be changed and/or removed. --Calibas (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy to see that sentence go away because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But it's supported by many of the sources in the article -- Strassel, for one, and of course Potter. A quick Google search turns up (amongst dozens of others) Owens 2011, probably the best source you'll find from this year so far. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Staying on topic

It seems to me that an article about the Jevons paradox ought to be confined to describing the Jevons paradox. This article continues from there to a discussion of climate change policy. Shouldn't that discussion be more properly put in some article about climate change policy? Plaasjaapie (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback and suggestions

This article provides good coverage from an economic and historical point of view. But there is some confusion about whether the JP applies to energy conservation or energy efficiency, or both. Moreover, the views of non-economists, such as Amory Lovins and his colleagues at the Rocky Mountain Institute, (eg, [1]) need to be more prominent. And the recent article in Nature needs to be discussed (see [2]). These sources suggest that the rebound effect has been overestimated in the past. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So I'm adding an Update tag... Johnfos (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
This is first and foremost an economic issue. Views of non-economists are tangential at best. Also, there is no confusion in economics, the paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase technical efficiency. LK (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
LK (talk), I respectfully disagree with you. It is an economic and technological issue as well as a social and behavioral one. A sea of studies in behavioral economics, psychology, and sociology make this point, to see just one massive review of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies find a copy of this http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.eg.18.110193.001335 or contact me and I can email you a PDF. Also see some of my comments on Rebound effect (conservation) for references that undercut the legitimacy of the rebound effect. Bksovacool (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying, and my far to brusque earlier reply. You are correct of course that the sources and opinions here should not be restricted to those from economists. Perhaps the section on Energy conservation policy should be expanded? Also, having read through "Social and Behavioral Aspects of Energy use"[3] and the recent paper in Natrure,[4] I am convinced that they deserves a prominent place in the article and that some parts of the article should be rewritten accordingly. Perhaps following the discussion of Harry Saunders's paper in the section on the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate as well as some discussion in the lead? Anyway, if anyone wants to go ahead and make those changes, I'll support as time permits. Best, LK (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
LK, thanks for taking a closer look. Yes, please do expand the section on the Jevons paradox, I would be happy to help, if somebody else took the lead.Bksovacool (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

'Unbalanced' tag

An unbalanced tag was put on this article last month, but there is no discussion or followup on what is unbalanced or how to improve it. I invite those who believe the article is unbalanced to state their viewpoint, and propose suggestions. If there is no active discussion on improvement, the tag may be removed. LK (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The article places heavy emphasis on disputing the potentially incorrect application of the Jevons Paradox (regarding energy conservation), with at least half of the article dedicated to the very argument. It was written as though someone (potentially one very interested in the concept of sustainable development and technological optimism) was frustrated at an individual's use of the Jevons Paradox regarding energy conservation policy, and resorted to flooding the article with rebuffs against this argument. While this viewpoint certainly as every right to be demonstrated in the article, I believe far too much emphasis was placed on it and needs to be addressed. I cannot do this alone however, and I would like to hear others' views on the subject as well before beginning to overhaul the article. P.S. Apologies for the very late response on my part. I'm asking that we keep the Unbalanced tag until this problem is resolved. Temeku (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
As an economist, according to my reading of the literature, the views in the article reflect current scholarship on the issue. What is written in the article is backed by several reliable sources. Could you kindly point out exactly which paragraphs you object to, as I'm not sure what you mean by "heavy emphasis on disputing the potentially incorrect application of the Jevons Paradox".
If you have an alternative point of view, kindly express it clearly and point to some reliable sources that back it up. I would object to an unbalanced tag if it's just one editor's 'I don't like it' opinion. LK (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The extra emphasis on the energy conservation policy argument is noticed in the introduction to the article, which is simply too long, particularly the paragraph that begins with "The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation may be futile, (...)" and should be re-worded. The Energy Conservation Policy section should be scaled down also - not that I disagree with it, nor do I question the reliability and accuracy its sources - but is given more attention than the rest of the article by having it repeatedly referenced in the article's introduction as well, and is also the longest section of the article. Other discussions above on the article's Talk Page such as "Unattributed argument", "Staying on topic" and most of "Scope of the 'Jevons Paradox'" also highlight this problem. I am not asking that content be added, but the Energy Conservation Policy scaled down (or possibly moved to a Climate Change politics-related article) and the introduction be shortened and reworded. These problems are inconsistent with the article's Good Article status as well. Temeku (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If the only issue is the weight in the lead, then I believe we can come to consensus. I have edited the lead to reduce the size of the last paragraph, and apportion weight in the lead so that it better reflects weight in the article. I would note that the size of the lead is appropriate and follows the guidelines in WP:LEADLENGTH.

If the argument is about how much weight conservation policy should have in this article, I would invite you to do a search for "Jevons paradox", on google news, google books and google scholar, and consider the percentage of articles that also discuss energy conservation policy. If anything, this article has less weight on energy conservation policy than exists in reliable sources. Also, if you are interested in improving this article, I suggest that you read some academic sources on the Jevons paradox, I suggest the survey article :

  • Alcott, Blake (July 2005). "Jevons' paradox". Ecological Economics. 54 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020. Retrieved 2015-05-28.

and the academic reference book:

  • JM Polimeni, K Mayumi, M Giampietro, ed. (2008). The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. Earthscan. ISBN 1-84407-462-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)</ref>

Those sources extensively discuss the relevance of Jevons paradox to energy conservation policy. If we have no other arguments, I would request that you withdraw your request to reassess at GA. LK (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

FA candidate

I intend to take this article to Featured article status and will propose this article at WP:FAC in a couple of weeks or so. If anyone has any suggestions for how to improve the article. I invite you to join in. Together we can see this article to FA status. LK (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Gillingham's comment on this article

Dr. Gillingham has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


This article is could use some work. Here are a list of issues:

1. In the first sentence it makes it sound like the Jevons paradox is only discussed in reference to situations where there is technological progress. This is true when strictly speaking about Jevons, but it is also commonly discussed in a policy setting, such as when the government imposes efficiency standards. See reviews by Sorrell, Ines Azevedo (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-021913-153558) or Gillingham et al. (http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/68). I would recommend changing the sentence to say that "when technological progress or policy increases..."

2. It is a much too strong statement to say that the Jevons paradox is the most widely known paradox in environmental economics. Many environmental economists are not even aware of the rebound effect - while somewhat known, it is generally considered a niche area. The green paradox or the energy efficiency paradox are equally, if not more, prominent in environmental economics. The reference used to support this statement here is to work by a sociologist, not an environmental economist. I would recommend removing this second sentence and removing the last sentence in the "History" section.

3. The third paragraph misses several channels. For example, it misses that by reducing the spending on fuel, the efficiency improvement could free up some income (the indirect rebound effect). For example, see any of the review articles above. It also misses the fact that there would be a re-equilibration of markets when demand decreases, as discussed by Borenstein (http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=2597) or Gillingham et al. (http://reep.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/68)

4. The fourth paragraph talks about how environmental economists have proposed policies to mitigate the rebound effect. While it is true that some economists have, most mainstream environmental economists view the rebound effect as welfare-improving and just another benefit from energy efficiency. If there are externalities associated with the rebound effect, then there is a role for policy to address these externalities, but it is awkward to say that the policies directly address the rebound effect. See Chan and Gillingham (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/jaere/2015/2/1) and several of the review papers discussed above for references.

5. In the last sentence of the Khazzom-Brookes postulate should be modified to say that "under certain well-known functional forms" the statement is true (the reference is correct, it is just stated in a slightly misleading way).

6. At the end of the second paragraph of the "Energy Conservation Policy" section, it would help to add a sentence saying "Still other environmental economists point out that while the Jevons Paradox may occur in some situations, the empirical evidence for its widespread applicability is very limited." The reference for this would be this paper in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/abs/493475a.html

7. In the last paragraph of the article, there is a sentence that says that the imposition of conservation standards or other government interventions that increase costs do not display the paradox and can be used to control the rebound effect. This sentence is very confusing and should probably just be removed. Efficiency standards by definition lower the cost of usage and thus induce a rebound effect, and it's hard to see what conservation standards do not (emissions standards perhaps? But those are an economically inefficient approach that economists would not recommend). Moreover, in general usage the Jevons paradox can apply to government policy, not just technological change is not correct in general usage, so the first part of this sentence is also incorrect. See the review articles by Azevedo, Sorrell, or Gillingham et al.

In general, all of the references given above should be added to the reference or further reading list.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Gillingham has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference 1: Kenneth Gillingham & David Rapson & Gernot Wagner, 2015. "The Rebound Effect and Energy Efficiency Policy," Working Papers 2014.107, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  • Reference 2: Palmer, Karen & Newell, Richard & Gillingham, Kenneth, 2004. "Retrospective Examination of Demand-side Energy-efficiency Policies," Discussion Papers dp-04-19, Resources For the Future.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

About the name of the article

I think the name of the article should be Jevons' paradox just like in an article written by Blake Alcott. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Either "Jevons'" or "Jevons's" are acceptable possessive forms, however I believe that the form "apostrophe-s" is more customary in the UK, and, Jevons being English, the article should use the British English form. If I am incorrect about this being the case in British English, I have no problem with the article title being changed to "Jevons' paradox", however the previous title -- "Jevons paradox" -- was simply incorrect, since it requires the use of the definite article -- i.e. "The Jevons Paradox" would be correct -- which is something we generally avoid unless absolutely necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Page was moved without discussion to incorrect title

The page was moved a couple of months ago without adequate discussion. The move incorrectly assumed that the name contained a possessive. This is incorrect. The original title, "Jevons paradox" is correct. Economic paradoxes do not usually contain possesives, c.f. Allais paradox, Bertrand paradox (economics). A google search (compare [5] to [6]) shows that "Jevons paradox" is the universally favored term. Per WP:COMMON, we should use the term most commonly used by reliable sources, which is "Jevons paradox". LK (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My examination shows those two terms getting almost exactly equal number of Ghits, so I don't think you've proved anything. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you are searching. Have checked the search links above. "Jevons's paradox " returns 6 hits on google news search, "Jevons paradox" returns 6,900. LK (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what happened, the search for "Jevons's paradox" gave me the results for "Jevons paradox". When I specified to search for the former, I got the 6 hits you mentioned (but note that one was MIT News). So... you may well be right. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the article to "Jevons paradox", and let's see how much trouble I get into. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, aside from bothching the 3-way move that was necessary, which an admin should fix soon, it's  Done. Let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jevons paradox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ed Glaeser 'corollary'

In my view, just because someone somewhere discusses the Jevons paradox, that does not justify a paragraph, let alone an entire section based on their discussion. I welcome justifications of inclusion this material. LK (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • (1) Edward Glaeser is not a mere "someone", he's a notable Harvard economist who has been called a "genius" by a Nobel Award-winning economist, while another one said that before he came along "urban economics was dried up. No one had come up with some new ways to look at cities." He's "the Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government, and the Director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston (both at the Kennedy School of Government). He is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a contributing editor of City Journal. He was also an editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics." So, he ain't just any old "someone somewhere", and you must provide an argument here as to why his complementary corollary shouldn't be included here.
  • (2) It's nice of you to attempt to frame the paragraph as a "bold inclusion" on my part, but I added it to the article in November 2016, so it's now part of the status quo of the article, and the only "bold" edit subject to WP:BRD here is your deletion. So please do not continue to remove it unless you have a consensus to do so from editors discussing it on this page.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
This has not been long standing. I wrote most of this article, and it was not there for most of this articles history. Harvard economist or not, a discussion in his book does not merit inclusion of a section in this article. I don't understand why you insist on including it. There are many notable economists cited in this article, about more serious work, and none have this type of highlighting of their work. Unless you can show that there has been some discussion of this somewhere else, I'm removing it tomorrow. LK (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, you need to wait for a consensus to remove it. If you do not, I will bring the matter to AN/I for adminstrative consideration. You do not WP:OWN the article, and you cannot ride roughshod over process because you "wrote most of the article". Glaeser is an authoritative and reliable source, and there is a valid argument for keeping his corollary in the article on that basis. You have not made a valid argument for removal, citing nothing except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not sufficient. If you want to be take to the noticeboards, fine, but I would suggest that it's easier and better to wait and see what consensus develops here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I have posted a neutral pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject Economics talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that in a way Gleaser is a primary source (especially since he coined the term himself). Are there other, secondary, sources which discuss this "corollary"? If so, how extensive is this discussion? My sense of it is that it's really not that significant. (Also - how many papers does Gleaser have on this? Was it an off hand remark or is he seriously introducing the term?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly (and I'm not near my library at the moment -- I will be later tomorrow) it was a major part of a chapter in his book Triumph of the City. As for papers, someone other than myself will have to check, I have no idea how to use academic indices which show citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
For citations, can try [7]. But for Gleaser you'll find a ton of stuff so need to figure out how to limit the search.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Just for reference, a search for 'Glaeser Jevons' returns zero results on the above search engine. Contrast with searching for "Glaeser real estate". Similar zero results from Google Scholar search and Google News search for 'Glaeser Jevons "Complementary Corollary"'. I can't find any discussion of this corollary in any academic sources, or in any other reliable sources (magazines, newspapers). LK (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A modern-day example: internet porn

Probably doesn't belong in the article, but throwing this out here for the amusement of editors. Apparently the availability of internet porn has increased demand so much that more energy is being used by web servers than was previously used manufacturing and distributing physical media:

23.83.37.241 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Malthus and (from archive) How is this even called a paradox?

Again one in the debate shows that (s)he has not read Malthus, Malthus did NOT talk about progress in technology, he just noted that people can only live on what biomass is producwed, as he in one place wrote "You can not eat money", meaning that money does not help against famine if there is not produced enough food! He also noted that farm production goes up linear while population can go up geometrically (IE doubbling(or more every generation) while food production only rises with new tecnology regardless of how well previous tecnology is used.) 

He missed out on two counts:
1) Mechanical energy instead of animal energy, which saved a lot of food. One source says that betwwen 1/3 an 3/4 of farm produce was used for feed for animal work.
2) Nitrogen fixation for fertilizer. This made an even bigger one time rise on farm production.

Both were BIG one time rise in possible population but did not really change his thesis.Seniorsag (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jevons_paradox/Archive_2&oldid=881839894"