Talk:Jevons paradox/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Peak oil

No such thing as peak oil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.62.210 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Air conditioning example

This article lacks real-world examples comprehensible to the average reader who has just encountered some kind of quack out of context citation of Jevons.

There are some very good lists of references debunking it in different applications. That one linked includes an air conditioning example, which appears on analysis to actually not demonstrate Jevons, though it is claimed to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.254.83 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Neoclassical economics & lists of ways to overcome the "paradox"

This "paradox" relies rather completely on axioms from neoclassical economics, such as demand being elastic with cost of supply. This is clearly not the case in any modern economy, where liabilities/externalities, absolute bans on some technologies, taxes, etc., apply. The article needs a clearer list of ways the Paradox is overcome in actual policy:

• taxes on both inefficient technologies & fuel, so that efficiency gains can be collected & spent on other efficiencies
• outright bans on inefficient obsolete technologies or those with inherent negative side effects / externalities / risk
• education campaigns that stress the value of overall efficiencies, such as savings on power grid construction or preventing water outages, which dampen any tendency to use more simply because it's cheap enough, redirecting savings to something other than consumption — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.254.83 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed self promotion

In this diff I removed a contribution by User:SalviaStellarum (= Richard Nolthenius) who cites his own original, non peer reviewed research. This user displays a pattern of citing his own original research in Wikipedia, see background information here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Garrett_relation . As explained in this deletion nomination, this research has no coverage in the scientific literature and Nolthenius and Garrett don't have any domain specific scientific credibility and should thus not be cited on the subject of economics as per WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Seirl (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Should it be possessive?

Rather than just make this change and see what happens, I thought it would be better to discuss it. q: should it be "Jevons' paradox" with the apostrophe after his surname?

Moore's Law, Sturgeon's Law, Occam's razor... are all possessive. It seems like Jevons' paradox is not possessive simply because his name ends in an S and the s' rule is little known/used. Anyone else support adding apostrophe? 50.39.179.232 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

should be rewritten to not mention "peak oil"

Also this article mentions "peak oil" which is a deprecated concept generally. There is no chance whatsoever that oil would "run out" or even become relatively difficult to access before the negative effects of its use (plastics in the ocean, global warming, etc.) forced us to stop using it. So there is absolutely no economic argument that should mention "peak oil" at all, it's entirely moot. It ought to be the subject of a general purge on Wikipedia. "The Stone Age ended, but not for lack of stones" as a Saudi oil minister was reputed to say. Whether he did or not, it's true, oil will not end for lack of oil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.42.254.83 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hubbert peaks, as in peak oil, never necessarily meant literal total exhaustion of a resource, but RoI dipping too far toward or even below negative. As such, peak oil is quite certainly still valid, especially if the deregulation and subsidization that create the farce of tight oil, were terminated. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:1425:7B0E:D465:76FE (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this just another "Tragedy of the Commons" concept?

Isn't Jevons paradox just another expression of the "Tragedy of the Commons" concept? It seems that numerous concepts just like this one are listed at the bottom of the "Tragedy of the Commons" article, including quite a few from the field of economics. If not, maybe an explanation of why not is in order, i.e., the differences between the two concepts. If so, maybe a link to the "Tragedy of the Commons" article is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)