Does energy efficiency just make us use more stuff?

Improvements in energy efficiency could give us as much as 50% of the carbon reductions we need by 2050, according to the International Energy agency. But the 'Jevons Paradox' says the more efficient and cheaper we make things, the more we use them. So are we in a no-win situation or is there actually a way out?

Help support this channels independence at

Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here

Video Transcripts available at our website

NEVER FORGET : EXXON KNEW!

Research Links
Main IEA Report

US Environmental Defense Fund

UN Environment Programme

FT article about EVs

Elektrek Article about heat pumps

Visual Capitalist China Infographic

Statista report on AC demand in China and India

BNEF article on solar PV

Check out other YouTube Climate Communicators

[r.]

It's a mindset. I was born in 1969, and raised with the mindset of reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose. I took to this readily and still apply it in my everyday use despite the pressure to just toss and trash. However, my three siblings resented and rejected the mindset, and are more than willing to send anything to the overflowing landfill, if it gets so much as a scratch. I grew up poor in a poor nation, and my attitude was more common there. I moved to North America in the 1980s and I was astonished by the wastefulness and the complete disregard for conservation that I saw in the majority of people.

I look for quality, and try to get it, although usually it's too expensive for me to afford (second hand shops can be goldmines). I do what I can, with what I can, to try to make things last longer even though they're designed to fall apart. I try to use as little as possible, as responsibly as possible. My siblings go for flashy and cheap, and as much of it as they can get, and don't care about how it was created and delivered.

So it's a mindset. In my grandmother's time of the Great Depression, and my mother's time of WWII, there were still those individuals who pushed back against not being wasteful.

[GhostOnTheHalfShell]

DownToEarth (an Indian channel) often covers passively comfortable building construction. Humanity has a huge legacy of such techniques that require no energy at all. These are by far the most sound approaches. The best carbon sequestration is the stuff we never have to use.

[Yanquetino]

Ah… Jevon's paradox. I remember when personal computers were to help us dispatch our tasks much easier, allowing us more leisure time, with less stress. Instead, our corporate bosses then expected us to fill up the time saved with more and more and more tasks. We now work longer hours, with fewer days off, and more stress than ever before. Will the same happen with energy production and storage? Gawd, I hope not.

[caroljohnson]

Our son made us a hay box. He made a nest in a wooden box using sheep's wool, lined it with a sheet and made a hollow the shape of our most used pan. Then placed ontop of the pan pillows. We get the spuds/rice etc to the boil then place in the hay box and the results are great: Hot, cooked spuds/rice/veg and lower energy bills. 😊

[punditgi]

Dave and Just Have a Think are as good as it gets. Hope for the best in 2024 and keep watching 👀 this channel! 🎉😊

[tim]

One of the big energy savers is not traveling. The less time spent in cars and planes the better. Switching to public transit, cycling, and walking is a big change that needs to be made possible in car-centric countries.

[BasisForChange]

The fundamental problem is GDP is the absolute wrong measure.

With GDP the emphasis is on "more value (i.e. higher GDP) is better", where value is expressed in some monetary unit. Consider three versions of the "lawn care" function:
- The owner of the lawn also owns a lawn mover. They use it to perform the mowing themselves. The time associated with that is an opportunity cost, and the activity may or may not be considered tedious. With respect to GDP the activities are related to the manufacture and sale of the lawn mower, not to the mowing itself.
- Hiring an existing mowing service to perform the mowing. These are almost exclusively "capitalist" services. Fewer mowers are required here. The primary economic activity here is the labour involved in the mowing.
- Having a service using a robot lawnmower to do the mowing. These could occur overnight and could be done silently. Depending on the climate and average lawn size, such a robot could perform 1000-3000 mowings per year and cost about $3000. The lifetime costs per mowing should be in the 10s of cents. The service may be capitalist or non-profit (e.g. a group of 50 neighbors get together to purchase the mower and the scheduling mechanisms) or one of them purchases it and charges their neighbors per use. The economic activity here is primarily related to the manufacture and sale of the robot mower.

Relative to options 1 or 2 the GDP contribution of this option should be less, probably far less, than 10% that of the other two options. A "more GDP is better" philosophy would consider that a very bad thing. However, to me it is clearly better: your lawn is mowed as frequently as you like, one need never be bothered by the sounds of neighbors mowing when you are trying to sleep, the opportunity cost from version 1 is not present.

[RobR]

When flat screen TV's were taking over for the old tube TV's I was all excited about the improved energy efficiency. Then computers and gaming systems came along and used all that up. The result is that most households now use the same or more power than they did before.

[steveallwine]

If you want to see a complete opposite to Jevon’s Paradox is the water use within the City of Seattle. For three decades now, with substantial population growth, total water consumption has declined. All through gains of efficiency.

[ryantennyson]

Happy New Year to Just Have a Think and to everyone who follows this channel.

[onebylandtwoifbysearunifby]

Hello Dave;
on LED lightning:

It's essential the colour temperature be 2700K to 3K for LED conversion from sodium vapor. The 5K colour temp is very blue, and results in numerous health problems in humans, plus migration, survivability of nocturnal creatures like owls and frogs and sea turtles, and Monarch butterflies and many more.

Turns out the bright white colour LED are an absolute disaster for human health and physiology including circadian functions. The shorter blue wavelength reaches far into the atmosphere creating an artificial sky glow in addition to the direct health effects seeing this daylight frequency at night causes.

A simple change to the "warm" 3K colour temp instead of the 5K glare prevents this blue light from scattering through the atmosphere creating massive light pollution. Also, directed lighting so the light energy doesn't escape away to light the sky increases efficacy drastically, resulting in significant reduction in emissions whilst simultaneously providing better lighting.

As a bonus it also allows us humans to see the Universe and our own Milky Way galaxy in the night sky; a fundamental connection we humans have enjoyed for millennia until the very recent few decades.

As well, everyone surveyed preferred the 2700K warm LED over the glaring white 5K, and could see better due to reduction of pupil constriction, which allowed for even lower wattage LED lamps to be used, further reducing energy consumption. A total "win-win" as they say.

Perhaps a mini-segment (or dare I suggest a whole show) on light pollution consequences from going efficient the wrong way would be a good episode?

(Also, note I translated English into British using "colour" and "lamps" instead of the obviously correct American "color" and "lights", that's just how important this issue is to global ecosystems.Also, Happy New Year!)

[carlbennett]

We should compare effective policies in our countries rather than household energy efficiency changes.
In Tasmania, we had a carbon tax for a few years, whose revenue was invested in energy efficiency projects at mass household level.
There have also been no-interest loans provided for household energy efficiency projects.

[RedDragonz]

Before watching, I'm going to say yes. Just like our spending swells to use up our income, if we have more energy, we do more stuff to use it up. Habit, human nature, whatever the reason, yes we should always strive to use less and be more efficient.

[petterbirgersson]

There are situations when two positive effects go in tandem. Our cities and settlements are suffering of light pollution due to excessive streetlights which messes up the biology of the insects and other creatures (the day and night cycle etc) . By showing showing a larger degree of consideration towards the natural world's demand for darkness we well also save more energy. Win-win.

[EcoHouseThailand]

Having been shocked at the poor design of homes here in Thailand I designed my own climate appropriate house. It is off-grid, with all electricity for our 2 electric cars and an electric motorbike being provided by my home solar, with one of the EVs providing extra backup power for the house. Yes we need 2 cars as we live in the country and grow a lot of our fruit and vegetables using solar powered drip irrigation. We have rainwater harvesting, solar thermal and fish pond with a solar powered aerator. Videos on my channel for the doubters.

[Robert_McGarry_Poems]

Your jokes get more and more cynical, but your presentation never cracks! 😊 Keep up the great work.

[ccibinel]

The effect is real. I currently drive 5000-6000 km / year (far less than typical) with a small ICE SUV but when I get an Aptera I plan to travel more since the energy efficiency / solar makes travel cheap and guilt free.

[ronkirk]

I never could understand why it took so long for the U.S. where I live to find the political will to encourage energy efficiency in such things as appliances (energy star), transportation (CAFE standards) and industry. We are shooting ourselves in the foot because it hurts our global competitiveness to be so wasteful in energy use.

[simonpannett]

Low cost and high efficiency come from mass market take up! If this is achieved without destroying material and producing CO2 (renewables) then at least more consumption does not create more damage! Also, much of the new consumption like producing mediterranean crops under heated glass actually reduces its current import with all the negative transport costs and damages
from its travel. UK does need to produce more of its food along with energy and you never know we could have robotised manufacture?? But the "throw away culture" has to go and we need only to consume what we need and hence not live in eternal financial debt!!

[gronkotter]

Here's the thing with Jevon's Paradox - it only has an impact if there is latent demand unlocked by the efficiency gain. Someone who drives less because it's bad, might drive more with an efficient car because they feel they don't have to go without. Or someone freezing their arse off in a poorly insulated home might consume more heat once it's more efficient and more affordable to do so.
But the average person doesn't drive more, use more light, or whatever, just because it's more efficient.