31:
325:
Isn't Jevons paradox just another expression of the "Tragedy of the
Commons" concept? It seems that numerous concepts just like this one are listed at the bottom of the "Tragedy of the Commons" article, including quite a few from the field of economics. If not, maybe an explanation of why not is in
150:
This "paradox" relies rather completely on axioms from neoclassical economics, such as demand being elastic with cost of supply. This is clearly not the case in any modern economy, where liabilities/externalities, absolute bans on some technologies, taxes, etc., apply. The article needs a clearer
161:
education campaigns that stress the value of overall efficiencies, such as savings on power grid construction or preventing water outages, which dampen any tendency to use more simply because it's cheap enough, redirecting savings to something other than consumption
271:" at all, it's entirely moot. It ought to be the subject of a general purge on Knowledge. "The Stone Age ended, but not for lack of stones" as a Saudi oil minister was reputed to say. Whether he did or not, it's true, oil will not end for lack of oil.
205:. As explained in this deletion nomination, this research has no coverage in the scientific literature and Nolthenius and Garrett don't have any domain specific scientific credibility and should thus not be cited on the subject of economics as per
235:
Moore's Law, Sturgeon's Law, Occam's razor... are all possessive. It seems like Jevons' paradox is not possessive simply because his name ends in an S and the s' rule is little known/used. Anyone else support adding apostrophe?
263:" which is a deprecated concept generally. There is no chance whatsoever that oil would "run out" or even become relatively difficult to access before the negative effects of its use (plastics in the ocean,
306:
201:(= Richard Nolthenius) who cites his own original, non peer reviewed research. This user displays a pattern of citing his own original research in Knowledge, see background information here:
232:
Rather than just make this change and see what happens, I thought it would be better to discuss it. q: should it be "Jevons' paradox" with the apostrophe after his surname?
301:
dipping too far toward or even below negative. As such, peak oil is quite certainly still valid, especially if the deregulation and subsidization that create the farce of
110:
This article lacks real-world examples comprehensible to the average reader who has just encountered some kind of quack out of context citation of Jevons.
341:
113:
286:
237:
177:
135:
91:
310:
333:
326:
order, i.e., the differences between the two concepts. If so, maybe a link to the "Tragedy of the
Commons" article is in order.
155:
taxes on both inefficient technologies & fuel, so that efficiency gains can be collected & spent on other efficiencies
64:
59:
158:
outright bans on inefficient obsolete technologies or those with inherent negative side effects / externalities / risk
38:
202:
282:
241:
173:
131:
95:
198:
337:
278:
169:
127:
267:, etc.) forced us to stop using it. So there is absolutely no economic argument that should mention "
329:
298:
274:
218:
165:
123:
120:
example, which appears on analysis to actually not demonstrate Jevons, though it is claimed to have.
87:
297:
Hubbert peaks, as in peak oil, never necessarily meant literal total exhaustion of a resource, but
47:
17:
214:
117:
210:
264:
206:
314:
290:
245:
222:
181:
139:
99:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
320:
302:
268:
260:
252:
203:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Garrett_relation
146:
Neoclassical economics & lists of ways to overcome the "paradox"
25:
321:
Isn't this just another "Tragedy of the
Commons" concept?
114:
There are some very good lists of references debunking it
116:
in different applications. That one linked includes an
194:
151:
list of ways the
Paradox is overcome in actual policy:
8:
327:
272:
163:
121:
85:
307:2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:1425:7B0E:D465:76FE
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
251:should be rewritten to not mention "
24:
29:
1:
246:20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
259:Also this article mentions "
197:I removed a contribution by
100:22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
342:05:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
84:No such thing as peak oil
358:
315:12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
291:20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
223:23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
182:20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
140:20:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
228:Should it be possessive?
106:Air conditioning example
189:Removed self promotion
42:of past discussions.
199:User:SalviaStellarum
305:, were terminated.
18:Talk:Jevons paradox
344:
332:comment added by
293:
277:comment added by
184:
168:comment added by
142:
126:comment added by
102:
90:comment added by
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
349:
118:air conditioning
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
357:
356:
352:
351:
350:
348:
347:
346:
323:
257:
230:
191:
148:
108:
82:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
355:
353:
322:
319:
318:
317:
279:100.42.254.83
265:global warming
256:
249:
229:
226:
190:
187:
186:
185:
170:100.42.254.83
159:
156:
147:
144:
128:100.42.254.83
107:
104:
81:
78:
75:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
354:
345:
343:
339:
335:
331:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
294:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
270:
266:
262:
254:
250:
248:
247:
243:
239:
238:50.39.179.232
233:
227:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
188:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
160:
157:
154:
153:
152:
145:
143:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
119:
115:
111:
105:
103:
101:
97:
93:
92:38.104.62.210
89:
79:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
328:āĀ Preceding
324:
273:āĀ Preceding
258:
234:
231:
192:
164:āĀ Preceding
149:
122:āĀ Preceding
112:
109:
86:āĀ Preceding
83:
70:
43:
37:
334:68.54.0.181
36:This is an
303:tight oil
195:this diff
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
330:unsigned
287:contribs
275:unsigned
269:peak oil
261:peak oil
253:peak oil
211:WP:UNDUE
178:contribs
166:unsigned
136:contribs
124:unsigned
88:unsigned
80:Peak oil
39:archive
207:WP:NOR
215:Seirl
16:<
338:talk
311:talk
283:talk
242:talk
219:talk
209:and
174:talk
132:talk
96:talk
299:RoI
193:In
340:)
313:)
289:)
285:ā¢
244:)
221:)
213:.
180:)
176:ā¢
138:)
134:ā¢
98:)
336:(
309:(
281:(
255:"
240:(
217:(
172:(
130:(
94:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.