Who's afraid of the big, bad Jevons?

[Zachary Semke]

Hi All, 

I’ve really enjoyed reading the conversation about Passivhaus and PHIUS+ 2015. Good stuff.

Hayden, in your last message you included this footnote:

“Increasing aggregate fuel efficiency makes fuel effectively cheaper and more available, which ultimately increases, rather than decreases fuel consumption.  At least that's what I'm pondering these days. Hence my thought that energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are separate issues, and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.”

I’ve been pondering the same question (aka “The Jevons Paradox”), especially since it played such a starring role in the keynote addresses at PHnw6. In the spirit of dialogue and debate, here’s what I’m concluding from my research so far. 

(Apologies for the length of this – I tried to keep it as brief as possible...the reason for all my words?: I’m frankly fairly alarmed by the traction that Jevons seemed to get with our community a couple weeks ago. As you’ll see below, I think the Jevons Paradox is a red herring. To the degree that it causes us to conclude that our efforts are unrelated to reducing carbon emissions, it is also counterproductive.)

“Why I think the Jevons Paradox is hooey, and you should, too.”

-OR-

“Passivhaus and passive building DO address global warming.”

(For folks new to Jevons...) Back in 1865, English economist WS Jevons observed that a new, more efficient steam engine was actually driving increased consumption of coal rather than the expected decreased consumption. The reason: because the new engines used less coal, the price of producing a unit of work with coal dropped, thereby increasing demand for coal. Hence the Jevons Paradox: “Increased efficiency causes greater consumption of a resource, not less.”

Now, in our world of super-efficient construction, that’s a pretty shitty message to hear, to put it baldly. If efficiency actually causes consumption, then what’s the point of what we’re doing? Yeah, maybe we’re delivering health and comfort to occupants. And maybe these buildings are resilient places to set up survivalist camps to weather the Apocalypse. But, Jevons, you’re telling me that all my green building good intentions are actually going to hasten climate change??

Wow, what a huge bummer.

And so counter-intuitive. (Suspiciously so.)

What I am uncovering as I delve into the Jevons Paradox, and how an 1865 paper may or may not apply to our world today, is that... 

1. Economists universally agree that a small “rebound” effect does exist. 

For example, if I save $100 on gas driving my Prius, in theory I will increase my overall consumption by about $100. Some proportion of that consumption will go to things that burn energy (estimated at 6-8%, the proportion of our economy made up of primary energy). So of the $100 in energy burning that my Prius prevented, I’ll be spending about $6-8 on other energy burning (more miles on my Prius, consumer goods that take energy to produce, etc.) On balance, the efficiency of my Prius saved $92-94 in energy consumption ($100 minus $6-8). Not bad. 

That $6-8 is the rebound. But it is not proof of the Jevons Paradox. Remember, Jevons says efficiency causes MORE consumption than would have otherwise occurred. So, given that my 50mpg Prius is more than twice as fuel efficient than the average 23.6 mpg US car, my car’s efficiency would have to cause me to more than double my vehicle miles traveled to prove Jevons right. That’s crazy talk. Yes, there’s a rebound effect. But it’s tiny compared to the efficiency gains. (Don’t get me wrong...Priuses are not going to save the world...)

2. You gotta prove it with data or you’re just storytelling. 

At PHnw6 we were shown pictures of double-wide fridges and LEDs on buildings and told stories about how energy efficiency and affluence and profligate consumption are leading us in the wrong direction. It was compelling stuff. I especially liked Lloyd’s cautions about the dangers of being seduced by technology at the expense of nailing the fundamentals of passive building. But the conversation about the Jevons Paradox was about pictures and narrative, not numbers. We didn’t see data to support the causal (or even correlational) claims. And the only way I’m going to accept a notion as counterintuitive and, frankly, show-stopping, as Jevons is if I see some real proof that it applies to our world. 

Let’s look at the fridges. First, does anyone actually believe that people are buying double-wide fridges now because they are energy efficient? (If Jevons applies to fridge size, then energy efficiency CAUSES increases in fridge size.) A far more likely driver of double-wides is affluence and the big kitchens that wealth makes possible. But let’s look at the data, this from David Goldstein of NRDC:

​

It shows that expansion of fridge size (the red line) SLOWED significantly just as energy efficiency began to improve after 1972. If Jevons applied to fridges, we should have seen a big spike in fridge size after 1972. That didn't happen so there's no proof of Jevons here. Likely the opposite.

I suspect that the same is true of LEDs. Surely there’s a rebound effect as folks feel freer to use their lights. But I highly doubt that it rises to the level of the Jevons Paradox where LED efficiency actually INCREASES electricity use for lighting. It certainly hasn’t in my house – and we are no saints. And those pictures of LEDs on building exteriors in Asia? That sort of exterior lighting has been going on in Asia for decades – just look at a picture of Tokyo in the 80s, or fire up a copy of Blade Runner again. Lighting efficiency did not create that phenomenon, and likely makes a fairly wasteful practice much more efficient. Am I wrong? Let’s see some numbers.

The reality is that even one of the most prominent champions of the Jevons Paradox (David Owen, author of “The Efficiency Dilemma”) admits that most economists agree that the Jevons Paradox doesn’t apply to our world today. He quotes Stanford University’s Lee Schipper:

“The key to understanding Jevons is that processes, products, and activities where energy is a very high part of the cost – in this country, a few metals, a few chemicals, air travel – are the only ones whose variable cost is very sensitive to energy. That’s it.”

Unfortunately, Owen goes on to ignore Schipper and weave the whole refrigerator yarn again. No data support provided.

3. We shouldn’t conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox. 

Lacking numbers-based evidence of Jevons at the microeconomic scale, Owens and other Jevons champions pivot to a larger, macroeconomic version: energy efficiency makes our society richer, which increases energy consumption.

But even this assertion is challenged by the numbers. Take a look at these two graphs, again from Goldstein at NRDC:

California energy efficiency measures

​

California per capita electricity consumption

​
​If Jevons applied here, California’s efficiency gains would have driven GREATER per capita consumption. Instead, it has SLASHED per capita consumption. Maybe a smart, Jevons-believing economist could unpack the data and prove Jevons lurked here somewhere, perhaps hidden by other variables. But show us the data.

Two recent and related data points are worth noting...both run counter to what we would expect if Jevons were at work at the macroeconomic level:

1. EU Energy consumption just fell to a 20-year low.
   
2. 2014 marked the first time in 40 years that carbon emissions did not increase during a period of economic expansion.
   

This is not to say that we’re off the hook on our profligate ways. It’s well established that affluent societies consume way more energy than poorer ones. And perhaps the wealth-creating effect of energy efficiency plays a role in this dynamic. But even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale (meaning overall increases in the energy efficiency of society lead to greater energy consumption), environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect. And there’s a mutually supporting relationship between Passivhaus/passive building and a carbon tax: the carbon tax helps guarantee that building efficiency gains “stick,” and the do-ability of Passivhaus/passive buildings makes the carbon tax more palatable.

I know it won’t be easy to pass a carbon tax, but here are three reasons for hope:

1. 52% of Americans now say they are worried about climate change.
   
2. While any carbon tax initiative will need to battle entrenched dirty energy interests, plenty of one-percenters are freaked out about climate change and have no vested interest in dirty energy...Silicon Valley anyone?
   
3. The same potential for a “black swan” event that fuels nightmares of wholesale ecosystem collapse also applies to positive change and paradigm shifts. Examples: fall of Soviet Union, the imminent solar power tipping point, election of a black President, acceptance of gay marriage, etc.

​

4. Conclusions

The Jevons Paradox is a molehill, not a mountain. 

Passivhaus and passive building will be integral to solving the climate crisis, as part of a wildly multi-faceted solution. (Internalizing the externalities of fossil fuel use, through something like a carbon tax, will be vital to this solution.)

Let’s hope we put it all together soon.

- Zack

P.S. What do you guys think? Have you found data that shows Jevons actually applies to our world? Or is it all just smaller rebounds? 

P.P.S. Some good articles:

"Some Dilemma: Efficient Appliances Use Less Energy, Produce the Same Level of Service with Less Pollution and Provide Consumers with Greater Savings. What's Not to Like?" by David Goldstein.

"Mangling Energy Efficiency Economics" by Michael Levi.

"Rebounds Gone Wild" by James Barrett.

"Jevons Paradox: The Debate That Just Won't Die" by Kelly Vaughn.

"Time To Tax Carbon" by Jonathan Shaw.

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Bronwyn Barry]

Awesome post Zack.  Your posts are consistently outstanding and I've long admired your work at Hammer & Hand.  Sam is a smart man to have hired you.

I've been chewing over the same ideas since PHnw6's highly entertaining and thought-provoking keynotes from both Lloyd Alter and Steve Hallett.  I interpreted them a little differently to you though.  What I heard Steve saying, was not so much that what we were doing with building efficiency is not working and is no good, but that we should be very selective about what TYPE of buildings we're building and how they are connect to a greater system or infrastructure. (He used the term 'ecosystem' a lot, didn't he?!)  

It's the same idea of the energy efficient or electric car.  Is the electric car really an improvement over a conventional gasoline vehicle?  There are lots of highly charged (pun intended) debates over that topic.  The point I heard Steve making is that the car itself may be the problem, not the energy source it uses.  (I thought he used the whole Jevons's Paradox as a provocative ploy and setup for his punchline delivery to look at the real source of our problems.)

For our community, this translates to the question, "Are the buildings we're building really going to solve our climate and energy problems, even if they are Passive Houses - or PHIUS+ houses (god forbid! :)- ?" The conclusion I came to a while ago and wrote about at length here as a response to Martin Holliday, is that if they're isolated single-family detached structures that rely on long trips in cars in order to make them inhabitable, then the answer is NO.  

Having said that, I'm currently still designing exactly those types of buildings...albeit in a region with fairly decent urban transit.  (Ugh!)  Anyone with ideas of ways to transition out of our country's single-family detached home fixation?  I'd love to hear them.

Cheers,

Bronwyn 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Passive House Northwest" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PassiveHouseN...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Bronwyn Barry, CPHD, Assoc. AIA

Certified Passive House Consultant
Director - One Sky Homes

m: 415.819.7978

t: @passivehouseBB and @oneskyhomes

http://www.oneskyhomes.com/video/hair-dryer-home

     

www.oneskyhomes.com

[Zachary Semke]

Thank you, Bronwyn, for your kind words. And right back at you with the post admiration!!

(You've got some serious style. I love your "The argument is a ‘straw man’ and needs to be composted." !)

I'm in total agreement that big Passivhaus/passive building SFH projects that force you to drive everywhere will not save the world. Location matters, as does building form - and we, like you, are eager to build multifamily projects in the city. We're taking a baby step with the Madrona project, which will become a multifamily structure once the kids' area is converted to an ADU when they go off to college. But we need to reach much further down that path.

You're right that Steve was using Jevons to provoke, though I suspect he really believes that "energy efficiency causes increased consumption, not conservation." (quotes mine) But whether Steve believes it or not doesn't really matter - what matters to me is what we Passiv(e)s think.

We need to be very precise about this topic and not conflate the Affluence Effect (wealth causes consumption) with the Jevons Paradox (efficiency causes consumption). Affluence as a driver of consumption is widely accepted. Jevons isn't. So the burden of proof (numbers, not just stories or analogies) is on Jevons proponents. 

Why should we care about this precision? Because citing Jevons as an axiom is inherently self-defeating for Passiv(e)s. "Efficiency causes consumption" by definition invites existential crisis for a movement based on building über-efficiency. Sure, we can pivot to "resilience," as our new raison d'etre, but we lose lots of mojo with that move. Plus, the whole survivalist vision really sucks. (As a marketer, I'd have to throw in the towel, I'm afraid.)

In the absence of hard evidence for Jevons, we shouldn't give up on the conservation potential (and therefore climate-saving potential) of revolutionary energy efficiency in buildings. 

- Z

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Bronwyn Barry]

Hi Zach,

I highly doubt anyone is going to give up on the conservation angle of Passive House/PHIUS+15/(insert other high performance standard here) any time soon.  However, I do think we can - and should - separate what our motivation is from that of our clients and end users of our work.

As a marketer, you know how important it is to understand who your audience is and what motivates them.  Over the past (way too many) years of straddling the line between marketing and design, I've found clients are much more willing to accept adjustments on both design and cost based on 'comfort' (thermal-, acoustical- and economic- all qualify under this catch-all descriptor.)  'Energy savings' just isn't tangible or visible enough right now to generate a real shift and 'global warming' is just way too abstract for most of us way-too-mortals. (Present discomfort is way more motivating than future discomfort.)

For this reason selling the comfort benefits of Passive House makes my job really easy.  Just this past week Allen and I had a fabulously friendly (and boozy!) lunch with two of our past clients who told us, "Our house is so comfortable we don't like going out any more."  (I told them about the network of Passive House hotels, BnB's and house-swaps that is emerging around the globe and they were SO excited about that!)  We now have enough measured data on our projects to be able to easily back up all our comfort claims.  We've also verified that our PHPP models are insanely accurate, even on cooling loads, so are happy to offer a comfort guarantee.  

I wouldn't worry about Mr. Jevon's and his paradoxical world too much.  He was writing during an era concerned with the end of coal - which we haven't run out of yet.  (A very 19th century problem!)  You did a pretty good job of 'composting' most of his theory already.  Let the fermentation process begin.

Cheers,

Bronwyn

[Zack Semke]

Hi Bronwyn,

Absolutely - very good point about distinguishing between what motivates us as practitioners/advocates and what makes for a successful client pitch. H&H's experience with the comfort (or "health and happiness") emphasis mirrors what you describe.

"Hear, hear" to the composting of Jevons.

Zack

Sent from my iPhone

<fridges.jpg>
​

It shows that expansion of fridge size (the red line) SLOWED significantly just as energy efficiency began to improve after 1972. If Jevons applied to fridges, we should have seen a big spike in fridge size after 1972. That didn't happen so there's no proof of Jevons here. Likely the opposite.

I suspect that the same is true of LEDs. Surely there’s a rebound effect as folks feel freer to use their lights. But I highly doubt that it rises to the level of the Jevons Paradox where LED efficiency actually INCREASES electricity use for lighting. It certainly hasn’t in my house – and we are no saints. And those pictures of LEDs on building exteriors in Asia? That sort of exterior lighting has been going on in Asia for decades – just look at a picture of Tokyo in the 80s, or fire up a copy of Blade Runner again. Lighting efficiency did not create that phenomenon, and likely makes a fairly wasteful practice much more efficient. Am I wrong? Let’s see some numbers.

The reality is that even one of the most prominent champions of the Jevons Paradox (David Owen, author of “The Efficiency Dilemma”) admits that most economists agree that the Jevons Paradox doesn’t apply to our world today. He quotes Stanford University’s Lee Schipper:

“The key to understanding Jevons is that processes, products, and activities where energy is a very high part of the cost – in this country, a few metals, a few chemicals, air travel – are the only ones whose variable cost is very sensitive to energy. That’s it.”

Unfortunately, Owen goes on to ignore Schipper and weave the whole refrigerator yarn again. No data support provided.

3. We shouldn’t conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox. 

Lacking numbers-based evidence of Jevons at the microeconomic scale, Owens and other Jevons champions pivot to a larger, macroeconomic version: energy efficiency makes our society richer, which increases energy consumption.

But even this assertion is challenged by the numbers. Take a look at these two graphs, again from Goldstein at NRDC:

California energy efficiency measures

<cal-efficiency.jpg>
​

California per capita electricity consumption

<cal-consumption.jpg>

[Albert Rooks]

The Jevons parradox still remains in macro not mirco application. The choice of Steve Hallet was  made to keep the "edge" near and too warn against early "self congratulations". We didn't know he would put on such a strong presentation, but there you are... 

While we can, and will, have local and regional impact by teaching and providing efficiency, the rest of the undeveloped world continues to develop at an alarming pace. The macro effects of lower cost vehicles in developing nations are putting more drivers on the road with two stroke motorbikes and minicars. They are more efficient and use less fuel, but the numbers of newly manufactured units are expanding rapidly. 

I don't know what the current IGCC numbers are, but the last I heard, the numbers aren't warm and fuzzy. it think they're more in the realm of "hot and crazy".

So... While the presentation was pretty dramitcally done, I don't think I'll dismiss the message and warning that efficiency promotes increased use. I think it does. While our culture may begin a trend of diminishing use, there is the rest of the worlds increased access to the  "method and means" for fossil fuel consumption. 

I'm happy to be working with you all.

Albert Rooks [mobile device]

[Hayden Robinson]

Okay, okay, supporting data:

 

Recent Evidence for Large Rebound: Elucidating the Drivers and their Implications for Climate Change Models, by Harry D. Saunders, PhD, January, 2013.

 

For a peer-reviewed summary of econometric publications on the topic, see:

 

The Rebound Effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency. UK Energy Research Centre, 2007, which concludes:

The general conclusion of this assessment is that rebound effects need be taken more seriously by analysts and policymakers than has hitherto been the case.

 

My apologies if I helped get the conversation off track. I'd like to back up for a moment and remember where we're going, and how we got here.

 

A criticism of Passive House's has been that its focus on passive systems is uneconomical; it's been asserted that money would be better spent on PV. Unlike Passive House, PHIUS+ 15  gives credit for PV, and in the PHNW6 presentation, Why Passive House?, in addition to conventional passive strategies, PV was added.

 

Conservation vs generation is a question that I grapple with personally. I live in a rather charming, 105-year-old house. One evening I walked around it, with one of the PHIUS co-directors, pointed out the architectural damage that would accompany retrofitting it to the Passive House standard, and confessed that I could not bring myself to do it. (He said he wouldn't either.) I can still live with myself, but I'm left torn, wanting to do the right thing, and wishing there were an alternative. PV comes to mind - wouldn't it offset some of the waste from my non-Passive House? After all, isn't a kilowatt hour earned, a kilowatt hour saved? Make sense, right? But, as my, economist friend says: Makes sense, but is it true?

 

I've not found the answer. At the end of, Why Passive House?, I presented my conservation/generation dilemma. In other words, how confident can I be that, when my PV system generates 2,000 kWh of electricity, a ton of coal, or a barrel of oil, will stay in the ground forever? With Lloyd Alter's help on remembering the name, Zack pointed me to the Jevons effect - I'd never heard of it. Of course, Jevons came up again in Lloyd's  and Steve Hallet's keynotes.

 

Jevons' observation about the relationship between consumption and efficiency  kinda, sorta related to my question about the interchangeability of conservation and production, and kinda, sorta didn't. But it raised other questions, sounded interesting, and made sense. But, was it true? I went home and turned to the internet. My first impression was that, economics being what it is, much of the blog-level discussion out there was agenda influenced, and that commentary and conclusions seemed to align with the world view of the writers and publications: there are those that are sure it's applicable, and those that are sure it isn't, and it's not always clear that facts matter. I read Who's afraid of the big, bad Jevons? and came away unconvinced. I've noticed that a theme of anti-Jevons commentary is to pick a microeconomic example, ignore macroeconomic context, and exclaim that they've proved something; a lot of it is plain silly, the intellectual equivalent of pointing out that water-efficient toilets, don't lead to increased toilet use, then asserting that none of the water the toilets save will be used to fill swimming pools, water golf courses, or grow almonds at 5 gallons each, and go on to assert that water saved will stay in the aquifer forever.

 

Jevons, and his 21st century peers, raise worthwhile questions. And sometimes we should be willing to ask ourselves what the heck we are doing, and why? Doesn't mean we should become nihilists, or stop designing, building, and living in a manner that is consistent with the kind of world we want to live in. After all, solutions to the problems we face are all about human choices and behavior.

 

There is a lot talk these days about PV-fueled, primary-energy reduction as an equivalent alternative to building performance. It's not clear to me that it either makes sense, or is true. It seems worth figuring that out before encouraging a wholesale shift in that direction.

 

 

Hayden Robinson Zertifizierter Passivhausdesigner

hayden robinson architect

206.691.3445

[Zack Semke]

Aha! I knew Jevons wasn't dead. More later...

Sent from my iPhone

[Hayden Robinson]

Zack,

 

You're the one that suggested looking at Jevons . If you've decided he isn't helpful, fine. But changing the subject, over and over, doesn't answer the question:

 

How confident can I be that, when my PV system generates 2,000 kWh of electricity, a ton of coal, or a barrel of oil, will stay in the ground forever?

 

 

Hayden Robinson Zertifizierter Passivhausdesigner

hayden robinson architect

206.691.3445

 

[Zachary Semke]

Hi PHnw-ers,

I wouldn’t blame you if you’re tuning out on this discussion about Jevons by now. I’m going to respond to Hayden below, so if you’re a glutton for punishment you can avail yourself of more...

But before I do, I wanted to quickly encapsulate why I feel that the axiom “energy efficiency causes greater consumption of energy, not less” isn’t good for us (aside from the fact that it’s usually wrong):

1. It robs the practitioner of perhaps the biggest motivation of his/her work: helping to make a contribution (however small) to the climate solution.
   
2. It robs “the movement” of a powerful means of attracting new champions.
   
3. It robs the client of a powerful motivation for building a Passivhaus or passive building. (Health and happiness are important selling points, but every single one of our Passive House clients has expressed concern for climate as a driving part of their decision to pursue a passive building.)
   
4. It robs us of a powerful argument for including Passivhaus/passive building in building code or incentive programs aimed at reaching things like Climate Action Plans.
   
5. It plays into the hands of those who prefer the status quo.

For all these reasons, we’d be crazy to assume that the Jevons Paradox applies to the world of Passivhaus/passive building without incontrovertible evidence to prove it is so.

By definition, the Jevons Paradox says that energy efficiency efforts, like Passivhaus and passive building, are counterproductive. That’s why the Paradox is also called “backfire”. Rebound effects, which are widely accepted as being a normal part of doing energy efficiency work, are not the Jevons Paradox (unless the rebound is greater than 100%, which appears to be very rare).  

If the Jevons Paradox tells us “what I’m doing to address energy consumption is counterproductive,” a rebound effect tells us “what I’m doing to address energy consumption is less than 100% effective.”  

Okay that is all – thanks for humoring me. Now onto my reply to Hayden:

Hi Hayden,

I confess to being confused by your statement that I’ve changed the subject. I started here and here is where I remain:

Hayden, in your last message you included this footnote:

“Increasing aggregate fuel efficiency makes fuel effectively cheaper and more available, which ultimately increases, rather than decreases fuel consumption.  At least that's what I'm pondering these days. Hence my thought that energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are separate issues, and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.”

To recap, I think these two ideas are wrong:

1. Increasing fuel efficiency (aggregate or no) increases fuel consumption (aka the Jevons Paradox). (I’ve only seen evidence that the Jevons Paradox (meaning BACKFIRE, not rebound) applies in very few outlier cases, and I therefore believe it is a red herring.)
   
2. Energy efficiency and carbon emissions are separate issues and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.

Have you changed your mind on these two points? If so then maybe there's no disagreement between us.

My argument, as you’ll recall, is this:

1. Economists universally agree that a small rebound effect does exist.
   

1. (My Prius example mentioned a 6-8% rebound. This Energy Journal article estimates rebound at 10-30% for residential and transportation sectors, and 0-20% for industries – meaning that energy efficiency measures are 70-100% effective.) 

1. You gotta prove it with data or you’re just storytelling.
   

1. Energy efficiency did not cause fridge size to increase. 

1. We shouldn’t conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox.
   

1. Even the macroeconomic argument for Jevons doesn’t appear supported by the numbers.
2. Even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale, environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect.

So! On to the articles you cited as evidence for Jevons:

The peer-reviewed article from the UK Energy Research Centre is excellent, and supports points 1, 2, and 4 outlined above (the “Affluence Effect” isn’t really addressed by the paper):

1. Rebound effect is likely between 10% and 30%. (Page vi) 

2. Jevons Paradox (referred to here as the “K-B Postulate”) remains unverified: “This provocative claim would have serious implications for energy and climate policy if it were correct. However, the theoretical arguments in favour of the postulate rely upon stylised models that have a number of limitations, such as the assumption that economic resources are allocated efficiently. Similarly, the empirical evidence for the postulate is indirect, suggestive and ambiguous. Since a number of flaws have been found with both the theoretical and empirical evidence, the K-B ‘hypothesis’ cannot be considered to have been verified.” (Page vii)

4. Carbon/energy pricing implemented in tandem with energy efficiency measures can reduce rebound effects. (Page ix)

My point, here, is that the UK Energy Research Centre article proves my point. While there is a small (but significant-and-not-to-be-ignored) rebound effect, there’s no proof that the Jevons Paradox is at work. And in any case, carbon/energy pricing is an effective tool to address rebound (and by extension any possible yet-to-be-verified Jevons Paradox.)

I’m highly skeptical of the other article you shared, as it’s an unpublished paper (“From the SelectedWorks of Harry D. Saunders”) produced by a Senior Fellow at the controversial “Breakthrough Institute.” If there ever were an academic with a point to prove and axe to grind, it would be an economist working at BTI – a biased source to be sure. These guys are pro-nukes, pro-natural gas (arguing for a “doubling down” on natural gas production), pro-Jevons Paradox (its leading cheerleader, really), and anti-carbon tax. 

SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy cites this critique of BTI: 

"The Breakthrough people and their allies, among whom one must include Lomborg and Pielke Jr. at this point... are not asking for the technologically impossible. They are asking merely for the technologically possible at an economically impossible cheap price." "This disinformation campaign is almost entirely driven by fossil fuel companies and conservative media, politicians and think tanks. It is also advanced by the Breakthrough Institute and its president, Michael Shellenberger. His central myth -- a science fiction fantasy, really -- is that it would be possible to sharply reduce emissions without raising the cost of carbon pollution."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Talk:Breakthrough_Institute

Here are some choice articles about BTI:

• “Don’t believe the fossil-fuel lies: joining oil companies and conservatives, the Breakthrough Institute says we can reduce emissions without raising the cost of carbon pollution. It’s a fantasy.” Salon Magazine
  
• “Breakthrough Institute gets it wrong on climate economics – again.” Grist
  
• “Breakthrough Institute’s Pielke in a Pickle.” Climate Investigations Center
  
• “The Breakthrough Institute: Why the hot air?” Clean Technica
  
• “Rebound effect: The Breakthrough Institute’s attack on clean energy backfires.” Climate Progress
  
• “Breakthrough Institute fraudulently paints the IPCC Report as a pro-nuclear document!” Nuclear News
  
• “The Latest Blast of Disinformation From the Pseudo-Contrarians” Counter Punch

You’ll notice a clear political pattern here: the progressive media (Salon for example), the environmental media (Grist for example), and climate activists believe that the Breakthrough Institute is engaged in a disinformation campaign.

And, ultimately, Jevons boils down more to ideology than anything, given that so far there’s either no evidence for meaningful applications of the Paradox, or evidence based on models devised by economists at BTI, a “research body” with an agenda. 

I appreciate and respect your passion about the differences between Passivhaus and PHIUS+ 2015. I hope you are cautious about employing Jevons in making your case, however. It's a dangerous game, in my view; too easy to play into the hands of folks whose agenda is anathema to most of us in this Passiv(e) community: achieving transformational energy conservation and progress toward a climate solution.

- Z

P.S. In your latest email you asked me this question: “How confident can I be that, when my PV system generates 2,000 kWh of electricity, a ton of coal, or a barrel of oil, will stay in the ground forever?” My answer is: “not at all confident.” We may indeed drive right off the cliff and burn everything in the ground. No guarantees. But I don’t accept that as fait accompli. If I thought the Jevons Paradox applied to the world of high performance building or that macroeconomic rebound effects could not be addressed with tools like a carbon tax then maybe I’d accept that (dark) fate as inevitable. But I believe there’s reason for hope.

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[email]

All,

If I were you, I'd take up the offer to tune out on the Jevon's paradox discussion. It's a tangent, a classic rhetorical device: If you don't like the question being asked, substitute a different question, and keep things go around, and around, and around, till nobody remembers, or cares, what's been asked, or why. I apologize, if I inadvertently helped get things off track.

-Hayden

---

From: "Zachary Semke" <za...@hammerandhand.com>
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:43 AM

To: Passive...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of the big, bad Jevons?

Hi PHnw-ers,

I wouldn't blame you if you're tuning out on this discussion about Jevons by now. I'm going to respond to Hayden below, so if you're a glutton for punishment you can avail yourself of more...

But before I do, I wanted to quickly encapsulate why I feel that the axiom "energy efficiency causes greater consumption of energy, not less" isn't good for us (aside from the fact that it's usually wrong):

1. It robs the practitioner of perhaps the biggest motivation of his/her work: helping to make a contribution (however small) to the climate solution.
   
2. It robs "the movement" of a powerful means of attracting new champions.
   
3. It robs the client of a powerful motivation for building a Passivhaus or passive building. (Health and happiness are important selling points, but every single one of our Passive House clients has expressed concern for climate as a driving part of their decision to pursue a passive building.)
   
4. It robs us of a powerful argument for including Passivhaus/passive building in building code or incentive programs aimed at reaching things like Climate Action Plans.
   
5. It plays into the hands of those who prefer the status quo.

For all these reasons, we'd be crazy to assume that the Jevons Paradox applies to the world of Passivhaus/passive building without incontrovertible evidence to prove it is so.

By definition, the Jevons Paradox says that energy efficiency efforts, like Passivhaus and passive building, are counterproductive. That's why the Paradox is also called "backfire". Rebound effects, which are widely accepted as being a normal part of doing energy efficiency work, are not the Jevons Paradox (unless the rebound is greater than 100%, which appears to be very rare).  

If the Jevons Paradox tells us "what I'm doing to address energy consumption is counterproductive," a rebound effect tells us "what I'm doing to address energy consumption is less than 100% effective."  

Okay that is all - thanks for humoring me. Now onto my reply to Hayden:

Hi Hayden,

I confess to being confused by your statement that I've changed the subject. I started here and here is where I remain:

Hayden, in your last message you included this footnote:

"Increasing aggregate fuel efficiency makes fuel effectively cheaper and more available, which ultimately increases, rather than decreases fuel consumption.  At least that's what I'm pondering these days. Hence my thought that energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are separate issues, and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere."

To recap, I think these two ideas are wrong:

1. Increasing fuel efficiency (aggregate or no) increases fuel consumption (aka the Jevons Paradox). (I've only seen evidence that the Jevons Paradox (meaning BACKFIRE, not rebound) applies in very few outlier cases, and I therefore believe it is a red herring.)
   
2. Energy efficiency and carbon emissions are separate issues and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.

Have you changed your mind on these two points? If so then maybe there's no disagreement between us.

My argument, as you'll recall, is this:

1. Economists universally agree that a small rebound effect does exist.
   

1. (My Prius example mentioned a 6-8% rebound. This Energy Journal article estimates rebound at 10-30% for residential and transportation sectors, and 0-20% for industries - meaning that energy efficiency measures are 70-100% effective.) 

1. You gotta prove it with data or you're just storytelling.
   Energy efficiency did not cause fridge size to increase. 
2. We shouldn't conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox.
   Even the macroeconomic argument for Jevons doesn't appear supported by the numbers.
3. Even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale, environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect.

So! On to the articles you cited as evidence for Jevons:

The peer-reviewed article from the UK Energy Research Centre is excellent, and supports points 1, 2, and 4 outlined above (the "Affluence Effect" isn't really addressed by the paper):

1. Rebound effect is likely between 10% and 30%. (Page vi) 

2. Jevons Paradox (referred to here as the "K-B Postulate") remains unverified: "This provocative claim would have serious implications for energy and climate policy if it were correct. However, the theoretical arguments in favour of the postulate rely upon stylised models that have a number of limitations, such as the assumption that economic resources are allocated efficiently. Similarly, the empirical evidence for the postulate is indirect, suggestive and ambiguous. Since a number of flaws have been found with both the theoretical and empirical evidence, the K-B 'hypothesis' cannot be considered to have been verified." (Page vii)

4. Carbon/energy pricing implemented in tandem with energy efficiency measures can reduce rebound effects. (Page ix)

My point, here, is that the UK Energy Research Centre article proves my point. While there is a small (but significant-and-not-to-be-ignored) rebound effect, there's no proof that the Jevons Paradox is at work. And in any case, carbon/energy pricing is an effective tool to address rebound (and by extension any possible yet-to-be-verified Jevons Paradox.)

I'm highly skeptical of the other article you shared, as it's an unpublished paper ("From the SelectedWorks of Harry D. Saunders") produced by a Senior Fellow at the controversial "Breakthrough Institute." If there ever were an academic with a point to prove and axe to grind, it would be an economist working at BTI - a biased source to be sure. These guys are pro-nukes, pro-natural gas (arguing for a "doubling down" on natural gas production), pro-Jevons Paradox (its leading cheerleader, really), and anti-carbon tax. 

SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy cites this critique of BTI: 

"The Breakthrough people and their allies, among whom one must include Lomborg and Pielke Jr. at this point... are not asking for the technologically impossible. They are asking merely for the technologically possible at an economically impossible cheap price." "This disinformation campaign is almost entirely driven by fossil fuel companies and conservative media, politicians and think tanks. It is also advanced by the Breakthrough Institute and its president, Michael Shellenberger. His central myth -- a science fiction fantasy, really -- is that it would be possible to sharply reduce emissions without raising the cost of carbon pollution."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Talk:Breakthrough_Institute

Here are some choice articles about BTI:

• "Don't believe the fossil-fuel lies: joining oil companies and conservatives, the Breakthrough Institute says we can reduce emissions without raising the cost of carbon pollution. It's a fantasy." Salon Magazine
  

• "Breakthrough Institute gets it wrong on climate economics - again." Grist
  

(Apologies for the length of this - I tried to keep it as brief as possible...the reason for all my words?: I'm frankly fairly alarmed by the traction that Jevons seemed to get with our community a couple weeks ago. As you'll see below, I think the Jevons Paradox is a red herring. To the degree that it causes us to conclude that our efforts are unrelated to reducing carbon emissions, it is also counterproductive.)

 

"Why I think the Jevons Paradox is hooey, and you should, too."

-OR-

"Passivhaus and passive building DO address global warming."

 

(For folks new to Jevons...) Back in 1865, English economist WS Jevons observed that a new, more efficient steam engine was actually driving increased consumption of coal rather than the expected decreased consumption. The reason: because the new engines used less coal, the price of producing a unit of work with coal dropped, thereby increasing demand for coal. Hence the Jevons Paradox: "Increased efficiency causes greater consumption of a resource, not less."

 

Now, in our world of super-efficient construction, that's a pretty shitty message to hear, to put it baldly. If efficiency actually causes consumption, then what's the point of what we're doing? Yeah, maybe we're delivering health and comfort to occupants. And maybe these buildings are resilient places to set up survivalist camps to weather the Apocalypse. But, Jevons, you're telling me that all my green building good intentions are actually going to hasten climate change??

 

Wow, what a huge bummer.

 

And so counter-intuitive. (Suspiciously so.)

 

What I am uncovering as I delve into the Jevons Paradox, and how an 1865 paper may or may not apply to our world today, is that... 

 

1. Economists universally agree that a small "rebound" effect does exist. 

 

For example, if I save $100 on gas driving my Prius, in theory I will increase my overall consumption by about $100. Some proportion of that consumption will go to things that burn energy (estimated at 6-8%, the proportion of our economy made up of primary energy). So of the $100 in energy burning that my Prius prevented, I'll be spending about $6-8 on other energy burning (more miles on my Prius, consumer goods that take energy to produce, etc.) On balance, the efficiency of my Prius saved $92-94 in energy consumption ($100 minus $6-8). Not bad. 

 

That $6-8 is the rebound. But it is not proof of the Jevons Paradox. Remember, Jevons says efficiency causes MORE consumption than would have otherwise occurred. So, given that my 50mpg Prius is more than twice as fuel efficient than the average 23.6 mpg US car, my car's efficiency would have to cause me to more than double my vehicle miles traveled to prove Jevons right. That's crazy talk. Yes, there's a rebound effect. But it's tiny compared to the efficiency gains. (Don't get me wrong...Priuses are not going to save the world...)

 

2. You gotta prove it with data or you're just storytelling. 

 

At PHnw6 we were shown pictures of double-wide fridges and LEDs on buildings and told stories about how energy efficiency and affluence and profligate consumption are leading us in the wrong direction. It was compelling stuff. I especially liked Lloyd's cautions about the dangers of being seduced by technology at the expense of nailing the fundamentals of passive building. But the conversation about the Jevons Paradox was about pictures and narrative, not numbers. We didn't see data to support the causal (or even correlational) claims. And the only way I'm going to accept a notion as counterintuitive and, frankly, show-stopping, as Jevons is if I see some real proof that it applies to our world. 

 

Let's look at the fridges. First, does anyone actually believe that people are buying double-wide fridges now because they are energy efficient? (If Jevons applies to fridge size, then energy efficiency CAUSES increases in fridge size.) A far more likely driver of double-wides is affluence and the big kitchens that wealth makes possible. But let's look at the data, this from David Goldstein of NRDC:

<fridges.jpg>
?

It shows that expansion of fridge size (the red line) SLOWED significantly just as energy efficiency began to improve after 1972. If Jevons applied to fridges, we should have seen a big spike in fridge size after 1972. That didn't happen so there's no proof of Jevons here. Likely the opposite.

 

I suspect that the same is true of LEDs. Surely there's a rebound effect as folks feel freer to use their lights. But I highly doubt that it rises to the level of the Jevons Paradox where LED efficiency actually INCREASES electricity use for lighting. It certainly hasn't in my house - and we are no saints. And those pictures of LEDs on building exteriors in Asia? That sort of exterior lighting has been going on in Asia for decades - just look at a picture of Tokyo in the 80s, or fire up a copy of Blade Runner again. Lighting efficiency did not create that phenomenon, and likely makes a fairly wasteful practice much more efficient. Am I wrong? Let's see some numbers.

 

The reality is that even one of the most prominent champions of the Jevons Paradox (David Owen, author of "The Efficiency Dilemma") admits that most economists agree that the Jevons Paradox doesn't apply to our world today. He quotes Stanford University's Lee Schipper:

 

"The key to understanding Jevons is that processes, products, and activities where energy is a very high part of the cost - in this country, a few metals, a few chemicals, air travel - are the only ones whose variable cost is very sensitive to energy. That's it."

 

Unfortunately, Owen goes on to ignore Schipper and weave the whole refrigerator yarn again. No data support provided.

 

3. We shouldn't conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox. 

 

Lacking numbers-based evidence of Jevons at the microeconomic scale, Owens and other Jevons champions pivot to a larger, macroeconomic version: energy efficiency makes our society richer, which increases energy consumption.

 

But even this assertion is challenged by the numbers. Take a look at these two graphs, again from Goldstein at NRDC:

 

California energy efficiency measures

<cal-efficiency.jpg>
?

California per capita electricity consumption

<cal-consumption.jpg>
?
?If Jevons applied here, California's efficiency gains would have driven GREATER per capita consumption. Instead, it has SLASHED per capita consumption. Maybe a smart, Jevons-believing economist could unpack the data and prove Jevons lurked here somewhere, perhaps hidden by other variables. But show us the data.

 

Two recent and related data points are worth noting...both run counter to what we would expect if Jevons were at work at the macroeconomic level:

1. EU Energy consumption just fell to a 20-year low.
2. 2014 marked the first time in 40 years that carbon emissions did not increase during a period of economic expansion.

 

This is not to say that we're off the hook on our profligate ways. It's well established that affluent societies consume way more energy than poorer ones. And perhaps the wealth-creating effect of energy efficiency plays a role in this dynamic. But even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale (meaning overall increases in the energy efficiency of society lead to greater energy consumption), environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect. And there's a mutually supporting relationship between Passivhaus/passive building and a carbon tax: the carbon tax helps guarantee that building efficiency gains "stick," and the do-ability of Passivhaus/passive buildings makes the carbon tax more palatable.

 

I know it won't be easy to pass a carbon tax, but here are three reasons for hope:

1. 52% of Americans now say they are worried about climate change.
2. While any carbon tax initiative will need to battle entrenched dirty energy interests, plenty of one-percenters are freaked out about climate change and have no vested interest in dirty energy...Silicon Valley anyone?
3. The same potential for a "black swan" event that fuels nightmares of wholesale ecosystem collapse also applies to positive change and paradigm shifts. Examples: fall of Soviet Union, the imminent solar power tipping point, election of a black President, acceptance of gay marriage, etc.

?

[Albert Rooks]

Hayden and Zach,

I don't think there is any reason to apologize for this discussion. It's interesting.

Zach, you're comment:   But I don't accept that as fait accompli. If I thought the Jevons Paradox applied to the world of high performance building or that macroeconomic rebound effects could not be addressed with tools like a carbon tax then maybe I'd accept that (dark) fate as inevitable. But I believe there's reason for hope.

Zach, I don't see how the macroeconomic effects can be mitigated by a carbon tax. I think that's beyond our influence in the global economy. Isn't that been the constraining issue all along for CC negotiations? Squaring the developing worlds growth with growing emissions?

If this causes you to loose your "mojo" as a builder, I doubt wishing it away will be a long term solution. This must have been a bit like living under the threat of nuclear war in the 50's. It can't have been fun to have this hanging over your head.

Hayden:

You're point about softening PE limits in lieu of PV is still a good point. I'd like to see more discussion on it. Dr Feist will again present the Instut's two new standards next week. He maintains that the true relationship of PE to renewables is more complicated. Hopefully we can read a good narration here on renewables, seasonal storage, and the Passive House Standard.   

 

Albert Rooks [mobile device]

[Zachary Semke]

Whether a carbon tax is politically feasible is certainly open for debate! But I think it's pretty clear that until we internalize the environmental externalities of fossil fuel use that we will have a very tough time of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. And if rebounds caused by greater and greater energy efficiency develop into big rebounds or even backfires (Jevons again) then fiscal policy that counteracts downward push on price seems to be an important/powerful tool. At least based on my first pass of research these past few days.

This article in Harvard Magazine (http://harvardmagazine.com/2014/09/time-to-tax-carbon) features an interview with a Smart Person making the case for inclusion of a carbon tax (at some specified dollar amount per ton of carbon emitted) in the hopefully-upcoming climate treaty. Each nation would be in charge of structuring and administering their own tax - it would be revenue neutral, could be structured to be progressive (or not), and the revenue could be invested back into each country's economy as they see fit. His research and book contends that reducing capital-tax rates with the revenue from a carbon tax will result in both a reduction in carbon emissions and a significant increase in economic growth. His innovation is apparently in the ways that revenue from a tax is recycled.  

The beauty of this approach is that no revenues/tax authority needs to cross international boundaries - everything happens inside the country. This economist apparently has lots of experience doing research (and living) in China. He notes that the health and environmental benefits of cleaner air in China (and India, which also relies on lots of coal) brought by a carbon tax could result in a triple win if combined with his recommended capital-tax reduction - less carbon emitted, economic growth, and better air quality - thereby making it more politically feasible to include China and India in an agreement.

I'm no economist, as I'm sure everyone on this list knows. But I do remember from my environmental economics class in college: "tax bads, not goods." Carbon is bad - let's tax it. Investment in clean modes of doing business is good - let's reduce/eliminate taxes on that. 

Sure seems like some way of pricing carbon has got to be part of any climate solution we humans devise.

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Albert Rooks]

Nice article,

This is certainly in the realm of forecasting and there are no certainties. It would be a happy day indeed if the level of international cooperation achieved that kind of sobriety.

I would expect that a carbon tax treaty like this would be in the 5-8 year negotiation range.

The nagging issue is that the carbon emissions continue. That can be the false hope of PV. It can reduce, but it's better used to replace loads than offset them. 

Albert Rooks [mobile device]

[Hayden Robinson]

I would love to see a carbon tax. Coupling the external costs of CO2 emissions with the emissions themselves would give missing feedback to the market. The economic sense of Passive House would also, hopefully, become obvious. I suspect that, even with its economic benefits, and with offsetting tax breaks to make it a win-win, the carbon tax may face staunch opposition from the capitalist right, since a carbon tax would be tantamount to acknowledging that free-market capitalism  requires  corrective Keynsian intervention. Fingers crossed.

1.     It robs the practitioner of perhaps the biggest motivation of his/her work: helping to make a contribution (however small) to the climate solution.

2.     It robs "the movement" of a powerful means of attracting new champions.

3.     It robs the client of a powerful motivation for building a Passivhaus or passive building. (Health and happiness are important selling points, but every single one of our Passive House clients has expressed concern for climate as a driving part of their decision to pursue a passive building.)

4.     It robs us of a powerful argument for including Passivhaus/passive building in building code or incentive programs aimed at reaching things like Climate Action Plans.

5.     It plays into the hands of those who prefer the status quo.

For all these reasons, we'd be crazy to assume that the Jevons Paradox applies to the world of Passivhaus/passive building without incontrovertible evidence to prove it is so.

 

By definition, the Jevons Paradox says that energy efficiency efforts, like Passivhaus and passive building, are counterproductive. That's why the Paradox is also called "backfire". Rebound effects, which are widely accepted as being a normal part of doing energy efficiency work, are not the Jevons Paradox (unless the rebound is greater than 100%, which appears to be very rare).  

 

If the Jevons Paradox tells us "what I'm doing to address energy consumption is counterproductive," a rebound effect tells us "what I'm doing to address energy consumption is less than 100% effective."  

 

Okay that is all - thanks for humoring me. Now onto my reply to Hayden:

 

 

Hi Hayden,

 

I confess to being confused by your statement that I've changed the subject. I started here and here is where I remain:

 

Hayden, in your last message you included this footnote:

 

"Increasing aggregate fuel efficiency makes fuel effectively cheaper and more available, which ultimately increases, rather than decreases fuel consumption.  At least that's what I'm pondering these days. Hence my thought that energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are separate issues, and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere."

 

To recap, I think these two ideas are wrong:

1.     Increasing fuel efficiency (aggregate or no) increases fuel consumption (aka the Jevons Paradox). (I've only seen evidence that the Jevons Paradox (meaning BACKFIRE, not rebound) applies in very few outlier cases, and I therefore believe it is a red herring.)

2.     Energy efficiency and carbon emissions are separate issues and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.

Have you changed your mind on these two points? If so then maybe there's no disagreement between us.

 

My argument, as you'll recall, is this:

1.     Economists universally agree that a small rebound effect does exist.

(My Prius example mentioned a 6-8% rebound. This Energy Journal article estimates rebound at 10-30% for residential and transportation sectors, and 0-20% for industries - meaning that energy efficiency measures are 70-100% effective.) 

2.     You gotta prove it with data or you're just storytelling.

Energy efficiency did not cause fridge size to increase. 

3.     We shouldn't conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox.

Even the macroeconomic argument for Jevons doesn't appear supported by the numbers.

4.     Even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale, environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect.

[Skylar Swinford]

Hayden,

There are true free-market economists that would argue unpriced carbon pollution is theft and good ole Milton Friedman himself would recommend to tax it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/

However there are sadly many more examples of so called free-market economists claiming the negative externalities associated with carbon emissions are not certain enough to justify a carbon tax. If someone has such a hard time trusting climate science I think they ought to question is it because "I don't believe science" or "I don't want to believe it because the science doesn't agree with my politics". If the answer is the latter then that is no excuse and well if it is the former I don't even know what to say. 

Skylar 

--
Sent from my phone

[Zachary Semke]

Hi All,

Thanks again for the forum to exchange ideas - I learned a lot from the back and forth about Jevons. 

In case you're curious, I just published this post:

http://hammerandhand.com/field-notes/on-the-jevons-paradox-climate-and-fighting-defeatism/

Have a great weekend!

Zack

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Albert Rooks]

Nice blog post Zach,

I think you misunderstood me. When I brought up "Macro", I was positing a global issue, not a North American issue. The numbers for a decrease in energy consumption in North America have been showing promise for the last few years as I recall. 

Also, did you really run into that many people who fall into the hopeless category? I didn't seem to. Worry is worry. It doesn't equal belief. I like to leave room for expression without holding folks strictly to a "reactive moment" and over attribute.

Best,

Albert.

Sent from my iPhone

[Zack Semke]

Thank you Albert - sorry, the public post was not in response to your comment about Macro, but rather to what I believe to be the pessimism/defeatism of Hallett's basic message. (He's got plenty of company, btw, just see Jonathan Franzen's New Yorker piece from last week.)

I actually did interact with a few PH friends and colleagues who agreed with Hallett's assessment about the inevitability of "burning it all." Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course! I just think that prediction is premature.

Have a nice weekend,

Z

Sent from my iPhone

[Hayden Robinson]

Zack,

 

From a making-a-difference standpoint, I think it was a super-fruitful discussion. A couple of things stood out:

 

·        From the studies you found, building efficiency measures have been about 80% effective at reducing CO2 emissions. That's pretty dang effective.

 

·        From Prof. York's work, it looks like renewable energy generation comes in at 9% effective.

 

My take away:

 

·        Efficiency is 9 times more powerful and a much better deal.

 

·        Switching from efficiency to PV at the point of $/kwh parity is false economy.

 

Getting back to the real-world quandary of my old house, this tells me to stop looking at PV as an easy answer and focus on efficiency measures, even ones that seem too painful and expensive.

 

Am I missing something here? I really don't want to do something stupid. And those efficiency measure really are expensive and painful.

 

-H

 

Hayden Robinson  Passivhausdesigner

hayden robinson architect

206.691.3445

 

From: Passive...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Passive...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Zachary Semke
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 4:16 PM
To: Passive...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Who's afraid of the big, bad Jevons?

 

Hi All,

 

Thanks again for the forum to exchange ideas - I learned a lot from the back and forth about Jevons. 

 

In case you're curious, I just published this post:

 

 

Have a great weekend!

 

Zack

 

1.     It robs the practitioner of perhaps the biggest motivation of his/her work: helping to make a contribution (however small) to the climate solution.

2.     It robs "the movement" of a powerful means of attracting new champions.

3.     It robs the client of a powerful motivation for building a Passivhaus or passive building. (Health and happiness are important selling points, but every single one of our Passive House clients has expressed concern for climate as a driving part of their decision to pursue a passive building.)

4.     It robs us of a powerful argument for including Passivhaus/passive building in building code or incentive programs aimed at reaching things like Climate Action Plans.

5.     It plays into the hands of those who prefer the status quo.

For all these reasons, we'd be crazy to assume that the Jevons Paradox applies to the world of Passivhaus/passive building without incontrovertible evidence to prove it is so.

 

By definition, the Jevons Paradox says that energy efficiency efforts, like Passivhaus and passive building, are counterproductive. That's why the Paradox is also called "backfire". Rebound effects, which are widely accepted as being a normal part of doing energy efficiency work, are not the Jevons Paradox (unless the rebound is greater than 100%, which appears to be very rare).  

 

If the Jevons Paradox tells us "what I'm doing to address energy consumption is counterproductive," a rebound effect tells us "what I'm doing to address energy consumption is less than 100% effective."  

 

Okay that is all - thanks for humoring me. Now onto my reply to Hayden:

 

 

Hi Hayden,

 

I confess to being confused by your statement that I've changed the subject. I started here and here is where I remain:

 

Hayden, in your last message you included this footnote:

 

"Increasing aggregate fuel efficiency makes fuel effectively cheaper and more available, which ultimately increases, rather than decreases fuel consumption.  At least that's what I'm pondering these days. Hence my thought that energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are separate issues, and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere."

 

To recap, I think these two ideas are wrong:

1.     Increasing fuel efficiency (aggregate or no) increases fuel consumption (aka the Jevons Paradox). (I've only seen evidence that the Jevons Paradox (meaning BACKFIRE, not rebound) applies in very few outlier cases, and I therefore believe it is a red herring.)

2.     Energy efficiency and carbon emissions are separate issues and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.

Have you changed your mind on these two points? If so then maybe there's no disagreement between us.

 

My argument, as you'll recall, is this:

1.     Economists universally agree that a small rebound effect does exist.

(My Prius example mentioned a 6-8% rebound. This Energy Journal article estimates rebound at 10-30% for residential and transportation sectors, and 0-20% for industries - meaning that energy efficiency measures are 70-100% effective.) 

2.     You gotta prove it with data or you're just storytelling.

Energy efficiency did not cause fridge size to increase. 

3.     We shouldn't conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox.

Even the macroeconomic argument for Jevons doesn't appear supported by the numbers.

4.     Even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale, environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect.

[Zachary Semke]

Hi Hayden,

Thank you, I agree that it’s been a fruitful conversation! 

But the 9% isn’t a measure of renewable generation – nor is it comparable to the 80% in any way. 

We’re still don't know the relative fossil fuel-offsetting power of efficiency versus renewable generation. 

‘

(BTW, we at H&H wholeheartedly agree with Adam’s “conservation first, then renewables” approach. It’s a “yes, and” stance that acknowledges both the primacy of “building right” as well as the value that both conservation and renewable generation can bring to building owners as “pro-sumers” of energy and to society.)

Here’s a summary of York’s study:

It compared fossil fuels versus non-fossil fuels (nukes, hydro, renewables) in 132 nations over the past 50 years, and, controlling for demand, found that non-fossil fuels were making little dent on fossil fuel use:

• 9% in aggregate
  
• 22% for nukes 
  
• 10% for hydro
  
• No statistically significant data for renewables, as investments in them over the past 50 years have been too insignificant.
  
• We have no idea how energy efficiency would stack up in York’s rubric. Would it be 20% like nukes or would it, like renewables, not yet register on the radar? (I suspect the latter.)

So York's study finds that non-fossil fuel production has barely kept up with increasing demand since 1960. It does not find that non-fossil fuels (including nukes and hydro) are incapable or even particularly inefficient at offsetting fossil fuels if they became a meaningful proportion of the energy mix and/or we succeeded at halting growth in consumption (as has been done in California, btw, and is well underway in the US – see graph below).

Here's how the Ars Technic article explains York's findings:

"In the paper, York essentially tries to determine if the added energy/electricity production from these alternatives actually displaced fossil fuels, or if the increase in capacity just kept up with rising demand... 

"York found that each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced only 0.089 kWh of that from fossil fuels...

"York also looked at the different categories of alternative sources for electricity generation: nuclear, hydro, and non-hydro renewables. Using both models, each kWh of nuclear displaced about 0.2 kWh of fossil fuels, hydro about 0.1, and non-hydro renewables essentially didn’t displace any fossil fuel electricity...[Zack’s NOTE: perhaps a technicality, but the study actually just found lack of statistical significance for the impact of non-hydro renewables - not the same as "essentially didn't displace any."]

"Based on these results, it’s clear that alternative energy sources have displaced fossil fuels—but just barely. The main takeaway of the study is that if the same pattern of energy use over the past few decades continues into the future, we will need a massive growth of alternative and renewable sources of energy in order to significantly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels."

That last paragraph states what I think most of us here will agree upon: we need to change the pattern of energy use (use less of it) as well as the mix of energy production (cleaner, please). And, as York argues for, implement something like a carbon tax.

What I really like about York’s study is that he rightly challenges the notion that we’ll be able to address climate change through shifts in energy production (or by logical extension, energy efficiency) alone. Patterns of consumption (conservation) and economics/politics (carbon tax) are also key.

However! What does all of this mean for the Passive House practitioner or client and what we are able to impact in our world? It boils down to three pretty simple points, I think:

1. Build buildings that are as energy efficient as practicable.

2. Generate as much onsite energy as is practicable.

3. Support efforts to internalize the externalities of carbon (advocate for and vote for smart candidates and policies).

The notion that energy efficiency is 9 times more powerful than efficiency at offsetting fossil fuels just isn’t born out by any of the findings of York’s study. We have no idea what their relative power is – I bet they’re pretty equal. But that’s conjecture.

- Zack

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Zachary Semke]

I should qualify:

"I bet they’re pretty equal provided we solve for intermittency."

I don't mean to be cavalier about the technical challenges that remain in the renewables sphere.

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Hayden Robinson]

Zack,

 

You write a lot! Here's the question I've been trying to answer:

 

Your research said that efficiency measures are about 80% effective at reducing carbon - how does PV compare?

 

Thanks,

Hayden

 

Hayden Robinson Zertifizierter Passivhausdesigner

hayden robinson architect

206.691.3445

 

[Zack Semke]

Haha, guilty as charged! 

I don't know the answer to your question about PV - maybe someone else does here. All I know is that the York paper doesn't provide it.

Z

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 27, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Hayden Robinson <em...@haydenrobinson.com> wrote:

Zack,

 

You write a lot! Here's the question I've been trying to answer:

<image002.jpg>

[Hayden Robinson]

Thanks for the short answer!

 

Okay, you suggest starting with efficiency and ending with PV. There's got to be a way to know when to switch. PHIUS's take is: efficiency till a little past $/kwh parity, then PV. Is that good advice?

 

-H

[Zachary Semke]

There are lots of folks on this list more expert about PHIUS+ 2015 than me, and better equipped to explore the details with you, Hayden. I’m not your sparring partner on that one.

 

I will say that I'm excited that PHIUS+ 2015 is addressing the very question you pose: "when to switch?"

 

I’m also excited to learn more about how PHI is engaging with onsite renewables.

 

Cheers,

 

Zack

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

[Tom Balderston]

Zack,   this is far better written and reasoned than the arguments presented by the speaker at PHconference which i thought were rather hollow... you should publish it as an article!

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:24:09 PM UTC-7, Zack Semke wrote:

Hi All, 

I’ve really enjoyed reading the conversation about Passivhaus and PHIUS+ 2015. Good stuff.

Hayden, in your last message you included this footnote:

“Increasing aggregate fuel efficiency makes fuel effectively cheaper and more available, which ultimately increases, rather than decreases fuel consumption.  At least that's what I'm pondering these days. Hence my thought that energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions are separate issues, and that the solution to global warming lies elsewhere.”

I’ve been pondering the same question (aka “The Jevons Paradox”), especially since it played such a starring role in the keynote addresses at PHnw6. In the spirit of dialogue and debate, here’s what I’m concluding from my research so far. 

(Apologies for the length of this – I tried to keep it as brief as possible...the reason for all my words?: I’m frankly fairly alarmed by the traction that Jevons seemed to get with our community a couple weeks ago. As you’ll see below, I think the Jevons Paradox is a red herring. To the degree that it causes us to conclude that our efforts are unrelated to reducing carbon emissions, it is also counterproductive.)

“Why I think the Jevons Paradox is hooey, and you should, too.”

-OR-

“Passivhaus and passive building DO address global warming.”

(For folks new to Jevons...) Back in 1865, English economist WS Jevons observed that a new, more efficient steam engine was actually driving increased consumption of coal rather than the expected decreased consumption. The reason: because the new engines used less coal, the price of producing a unit of work with coal dropped, thereby increasing demand for coal. Hence the Jevons Paradox: “Increased efficiency causes greater consumption of a resource, not less.”

Now, in our world of super-efficient construction, that’s a pretty shitty message to hear, to put it baldly. If efficiency actually causes consumption, then what’s the point of what we’re doing? Yeah, maybe we’re delivering health and comfort to occupants. And maybe these buildings are resilient places to set up survivalist camps to weather the Apocalypse. But, Jevons, you’re telling me that all my green building good intentions are actually going to hasten climate change??

Wow, what a huge bummer.

And so counter-intuitive. (Suspiciously so.)

What I am uncovering as I delve into the Jevons Paradox, and how an 1865 paper may or may not apply to our world today, is that... 

1. Economists universally agree that a small “rebound” effect does exist. 

For example, if I save $100 on gas driving my Prius, in theory I will increase my overall consumption by about $100. Some proportion of that consumption will go to things that burn energy (estimated at 6-8%, the proportion of our economy made up of primary energy). So of the $100 in energy burning that my Prius prevented, I’ll be spending about $6-8 on other energy burning (more miles on my Prius, consumer goods that take energy to produce, etc.) On balance, the efficiency of my Prius saved $92-94 in energy consumption ($100 minus $6-8). Not bad. 

That $6-8 is the rebound. But it is not proof of the Jevons Paradox. Remember, Jevons says efficiency causes MORE consumption than would have otherwise occurred. So, given that my 50mpg Prius is more than twice as fuel efficient than the average 23.6 mpg US car, my car’s efficiency would have to cause me to more than double my vehicle miles traveled to prove Jevons right. That’s crazy talk. Yes, there’s a rebound effect. But it’s tiny compared to the efficiency gains. (Don’t get me wrong...Priuses are not going to save the world...)

2. You gotta prove it with data or you’re just storytelling. 

At PHnw6 we were shown pictures of double-wide fridges and LEDs on buildings and told stories about how energy efficiency and affluence and profligate consumption are leading us in the wrong direction. It was compelling stuff. I especially liked Lloyd’s cautions about the dangers of being seduced by technology at the expense of nailing the fundamentals of passive building. But the conversation about the Jevons Paradox was about pictures and narrative, not numbers. We didn’t see data to support the causal (or even correlational) claims. And the only way I’m going to accept a notion as counterintuitive and, frankly, show-stopping, as Jevons is if I see some real proof that it applies to our world. 

Let’s look at the fridges. First, does anyone actually believe that people are buying double-wide fridges now because they are energy efficient? (If Jevons applies to fridge size, then energy efficiency CAUSES increases in fridge size.) A far more likely driver of double-wides is affluence and the big kitchens that wealth makes possible. But let’s look at the data, this from David Goldstein of NRDC:

​

It shows that expansion of fridge size (the red line) SLOWED significantly just as energy efficiency began to improve after 1972. If Jevons applied to fridges, we should have seen a big spike in fridge size after 1972. That didn't happen so there's no proof of Jevons here. Likely the opposite.

I suspect that the same is true of LEDs. Surely there’s a rebound effect as folks feel freer to use their lights. But I highly doubt that it rises to the level of the Jevons Paradox where LED efficiency actually INCREASES electricity use for lighting. It certainly hasn’t in my house – and we are no saints. And those pictures of LEDs on building exteriors in Asia? That sort of exterior lighting has been going on in Asia for decades – just look at a picture of Tokyo in the 80s, or fire up a copy of Blade Runner again. Lighting efficiency did not create that phenomenon, and likely makes a fairly wasteful practice much more efficient. Am I wrong? Let’s see some numbers.

The reality is that even one of the most prominent champions of the Jevons Paradox (David Owen, author of “The Efficiency Dilemma”) admits that most economists agree that the Jevons Paradox doesn’t apply to our world today. He quotes Stanford University’s Lee Schipper:

“The key to understanding Jevons is that processes, products, and activities where energy is a very high part of the cost – in this country, a few metals, a few chemicals, air travel – are the only ones whose variable cost is very sensitive to energy. That’s it.”

Unfortunately, Owen goes on to ignore Schipper and weave the whole refrigerator yarn again. No data support provided.

3. We shouldn’t conflate the Affluence Effect with the Jevons Paradox. 

Lacking numbers-based evidence of Jevons at the microeconomic scale, Owens and other Jevons champions pivot to a larger, macroeconomic version: energy efficiency makes our society richer, which increases energy consumption.

But even this assertion is challenged by the numbers. Take a look at these two graphs, again from Goldstein at NRDC:

California energy efficiency measures

​

California per capita electricity consumption

​
​If Jevons applied here, California’s efficiency gains would have driven GREATER per capita consumption. Instead, it has SLASHED per capita consumption. Maybe a smart, Jevons-believing economist could unpack the data and prove Jevons lurked here somewhere, perhaps hidden by other variables. But show us the data.

Two recent and related data points are worth noting...both run counter to what we would expect if Jevons were at work at the macroeconomic level:

1. EU Energy consumption just fell to a 20-year low.
   
2. 2014 marked the first time in 40 years that carbon emissions did not increase during a period of economic expansion.
   

This is not to say that we’re off the hook on our profligate ways. It’s well established that affluent societies consume way more energy than poorer ones. And perhaps the wealth-creating effect of energy efficiency plays a role in this dynamic. But even if the Jevons Paradox does have an effect at the macroeconomic scale (meaning overall increases in the energy efficiency of society lead to greater energy consumption), environmental economists point out that a simple green tax (like a carbon tax) would wipe out the effect. And there’s a mutually supporting relationship between Passivhaus/passive building and a carbon tax: the carbon tax helps guarantee that building efficiency gains “stick,” and the do-ability of Passivhaus/passive buildings makes the carbon tax more palatable.

I know it won’t be easy to pass a carbon tax, but here are three reasons for hope:

1. 52% of Americans now say they are worried about climate change.
   
2. While any carbon tax initiative will need to battle entrenched dirty energy interests, plenty of one-percenters are freaked out about climate change and have no vested interest in dirty energy...Silicon Valley anyone?
   
3. The same potential for a “black swan” event that fuels nightmares of wholesale ecosystem collapse also applies to positive change and paradigm shifts. Examples: fall of Soviet Union, the imminent solar power tipping point, election of a black President, acceptance of gay marriage, etc.

​

4. Conclusions

The Jevons Paradox is a molehill, not a mountain. 

Passivhaus and passive building will be integral to solving the climate crisis, as part of a wildly multi-faceted solution. (Internalizing the externalities of fossil fuel use, through something like a carbon tax, will be vital to this solution.)

Let’s hope we put it all together soon.

- Zack

P.S. What do you guys think? Have you found data that shows Jevons actually applies to our world? Or is it all just smaller rebounds? 

P.P.S. Some good articles:

[Tom Balderston]

Zack, Hayden

What I  learned back in my biology days  was that there is a lot of everything  in the truth... in nature  its almost all out there and sometimes its true and sometimes not.    This Jevons idea strikes me as something that works in some cases but not many others.      

The speaker didn't present the idea of  economic rebound as i remember - that saving energy frees up money that gets spent elsewhere and uses more energy - and I thank Zack for clearing up for me that the effect is present but not big.

The other idea, that efficiency increases use of that same resource,   seems to me to be attached  most closely to revolutionary inventions  - as in where something that doesnt work very well yet ( early steam engine)  gets improved to the point it explodes growth into new markets. This reminds me of explosive advances in evolution in nature - like the evolution of flight  which allowed the birds to exploit a vast new resource and grow whole new trees of life in the air.     I can certainly see that  much more efficient  jet planes... like the 787 will make or at least keep jet travel cheaper and thus help keep expanding the numbers of people who fly. 

But in other cases,  like giviing Americans who already had a refrigerator one that is mucn more efficient,   It doesnt increase use, it lowers it.    The photo of larger fridges  was I thought disingenuous because  it hardly matters that the unit is now 25 cu ft, it still uses half the energy my mother's refrigerator did.  Recently I'm seeing a lot more smaller fridges, especially as people move to apartments.   

The problem is  that billions more humans  are getting refrigerators  and  they would get them anyway if they werent ENERGY STAR because they have the money now and a refrigerator changes your life.    Its more important that they can be manufactured  for less  than that they use less energy.  Its a lot more complex than simply saying    more efficient fuel burner increases the use of fuel.  

I think PH and green building folks have shown that great minds to do a lot of great work..  like figuring out embodied energy and that building one with glass and steel aint so productive as building it with wood and cork.  

I think Solar Panels are somehting we will need to watch and study -  they are definitley revolutionary as they get so much  cheaper.  the fact that  new fossil fuel power plant orders are dying because new solar plants are cheaper can only be a good think in my simple mind.  The fact that many sunny island places like Hawaii, and Cabo will stop importing deisel to make electricity  can only be a good thing.   I can also see that  cheaper and cheaper PV and batteries will let billions of people who dont have grid power get light in their homes and internet for education which could help them come out of poverty... and at some point they will get air conditioning and an electric car - all of which will increase energy use. 

What  im not clear about is if  that is always a bad thing... If it is an elegant,  decentralized  technology that collects sunlight for useful work rather than releasing fossil carbon  is that a bad thing?   mabye it is,   or maybe it's the new flight. 

- Tom B

[Zachary Semke]

Nicely put, Tom. I really like the "new flight" metaphor. 

And I think the key question ahead of us on the global scale is: can the decoupling of carbon emissions from economic growth take flight? The "developed" world's growth was fueled by carbon. So: 1. can we wean ourselves from carbon?, and 2. can the "developing" world take a less carbon-intensive (and, ultimately, carbon-free) path to economic development?

No doubt we face big challenges. But there are also signs that a sea change is possible: 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/07/3656346/hawaiis-green-grid-plans/

Here's to hope. Enjoy the insolation this weekend!

Zack

Zack Semke, Director of Business Development and Chief Evangelist
(206) 446-8349  Find me on Google+

--

[James Scott Brew]

Excellent post Zack--Thank you...and to all who have contributed to this conversation. Great morning read from Tokyo.