Editing Jevons paradox (section)

==Energy conservation policy==
{{See also | Steady-state economy #Resource decoupling and the rebound effect }}
{{Sustainable energy}}

Jevons warned that fuel efficiency gains tend to increase fuel use. However, this does not imply that improved fuel efficiency is worthless if the Jevons paradox occurs; higher fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher material [[quality of life]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ryan|first1=Lisa|last2=Campbell|first2=Nina|title=Spreading the net: the multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements|journal=IEA Energy Papers|doi=10.1787/20792581|url=http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/spreading-the-net-the-multiple-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-improvements_5k9crzjbpkkc-en|access-date=5 June 2015|year=2012|doi-access=free|url-access=subscription}}</ref> For example, a more efficient steam engine allowed the cheaper transport of goods and people that contributed to the [[Industrial Revolution]]. Nonetheless, if the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate is correct, increased fuel efficiency, by itself, will not reduce the rate of depletion of [[fossil fuel]]s.<ref name=Saunders/>

There is considerable debate about whether the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate is correct, and of the relevance of the Jevons paradox to [[energy conservation]] policy. Most governments, environmentalists and NGOs pursue policies that improve efficiency, holding that these policies will lower resource consumption and reduce environmental problems. Others, including many [[environmental economists]], doubt this 'efficiency strategy' towards [[sustainability]], and worry that efficiency gains may in fact lead to higher production and consumption. They hold that for resource use to fall, efficiency gains should be coupled with other policies that limit resource use.<ref name=Alcott1/><ref name=Sorrell/><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_owen|title=Annals of Environmentalism: The Efficiency Dilemma|last=Owen|first=David|date=20 December 2010|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|pages=78–}}</ref> However, other environmental economists argue that, while the Jevons paradox may occur in some situations, the empirical evidence for its widespread applicability is limited.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gillingham |first1=Kenneth |last2=Kotchen |first2=Matthew J. |last3=Rapson |first3=David S. |last4=Wagner |first4=Gernot |title=Energy policy: The rebound effect is overplayed |journal=Nature |date=23 January 2013 |volume=493 |issue=7433 |pages=475–476 |doi=10.1038/493475a |pmid=23344343 |bibcode=2013Natur.493..475G |s2cid=3220092 |language=En |issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that [[energy conservation]] efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of [[peak oil]]. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to enact environmental policies or pursue fuel efficiency (e.g., if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).<ref name="Potter">{{cite journal| last1=Potter | first1=Andrew | title=Planet-friendly design? Bah, humbug | journal=[[Maclean's]] |volume=120 |issue=5 | page=14 | url=http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070202_154815_4816 |date=13 February 2007 |access-date=1 September 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214235056/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070202_154815_4816|archive-date=14 December 2007}}</ref><ref name="Conservation Wastes Energy ">{{cite journal|last=Strassel |first=Kimberley A. |date=17 May 2001 |title=Conservation Wastes Energy |journal=The Wall Street Journal |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95000484 |access-date=31 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051113194327/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95000484|archive-date=13 November 2005 }}</ref> Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.<ref name="Small"/><ref name=Greening/><ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/3492.pdf
| last=Gottron
| first= Frank
| title = Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand?
| access-date=24 February 2012
| date = 30 July 2001
| publisher = National Council for Science and the Environment}}</ref> Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with crude oil depletion.<ref>{{cite journal
|last1=Hirsch |first1= R. L.|last2= Bezdek |first2=R. |last3=and Wendling |first3= R.
|year=2006
|title=Peaking of World Oil Production and Its Mitigation
|journal=AIChE Journal
|volume=52
|issue=1
|pages= 2–8
|doi= 10.1002/aic.10747|doi-access=free
|bibcode= 2006AIChE..52....2H}}</ref> Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g., a [[fuel tax]]) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.<ref name="Wackernagel"/>

The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency by itself may not reduce fuel use, and that [[sustainable energy]] policy must rely on other types of government interventions as well.<ref name="Energy Efficiency Policies"/> As the imposition of conservation standards or other government interventions that increase cost-of-use do not display the Jevons paradox, they can be used to control the rebound effect.<ref name="Energy Efficiency Policies"/> To ensure that efficiency-enhancing technological improvements reduce fuel use, efficiency gains can be paired with government intervention that reduces demand (e.g., [[ecotax|green taxes]], [[Emissions trading|cap and trade]], or higher [[emissions standard]]s). The [[ecological economics|ecological economists]] [[Mathis Wackernagel]] and [[William E. Rees (academic)|William Rees]] have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in [[natural capital]] rehabilitation."<ref name="Wackernagel"/> By mitigating the economic effects of government interventions designed to promote ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological progress may make the imposition of these interventions more palatable, and more likely to be implemented.<ref name="Laitner DeCanio Peters">{{cite journal |last1=Laitner |first1=John A.|first2=Stephen J.|last2= De Canio |first3= Irene|last3= Peters |title=Incorporating Behavioural, Social, and Organizational Phenomena in the Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Options  |journal=Society, Behaviour, and Climate Change Mitigation |year=2003|volume=8 |pages=1–64|doi=10.1007/0-306-48160-X_1 |series=Advances in Global Change Research|isbn=978-0-7923-6802-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Freire-González |first1=Jaume |title=Governing Jevons' Paradox: Policies and systemic alternatives to avoid the rebound effect |journal=[[Energy Research & Social Science]] |date=1 February 2021 |volume=72 |pages=101893 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2020.101893|bibcode=2021ERSS...7201893F |s2cid=234020339 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Siami |first1=Navid |last2=Winter |first2=Ralph A. |title=Jevons' paradox revisited: Implications for climate change |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176521002329 |journal=[[Economics Letters]] |date=1 September 2021 |volume=206 |pages=109955 |doi=10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109955|url-access=subscription }}</ref>