M.King Hubbert predicted how oil depletion would work out.  Global poverty is on the rise.  Meaning global affluence is in decline and past peak.  You can, if you are creative, come up with a definition of affluence that says that an increase in poverty does not mean a decrease in affluence.  If you do that, I feel sorry for you.

No economist has the balls to do the same thing about affluence.  I posit the graphs have a similar shape and the world is now at peak affluence.  Affluence is a function of oil extraction.

The wealthiest 0.54 percent, about 40 million people, are responsible for 14 percent of lifestyle-related greenhouse gas emissions, while the bottom 50 percent of income earners, almost 4 billion people, only emit around 10 percent.  Extreme affluence results in extreme consumption.

The extreme affluent have names and addresses.  Try to not forget.

As the world runs out of carbon to generate CO2 with, global affluence MUST drop.  Affluence flows outwards into society from the wellhead, and the refinery.  As fossil fuel flow abates, so must affluence.

The world's top 10 percent of income earners are responsible for between 25 percent and 43 percent of our environmental impact. This is a direct result of hogging to themselves more than a fair share of resources by  one order of magnitude.  (The one with a 10 in it.)  The extremely affluent use several orders of magnitude more than their fair share.

Technological improvements have reduced emissions, but worldwide growth in affluence cancels all gains.  When technical improvement meets a capitalist market, mass production and low cost results in commodities that produce Jevons Paradox! 

Modest thought quickly shows there is no paradox at all.  Jevon's paradox is the direct result of commodification of improvements.  No capitalism, no Jevons Paradox.

Jevon's Paradox.-> Improvements that increase efficiency to conserve a resource results in more rapid consumption of the resource conserved. 

That is my definition and it is correct.  Some online definitions throw 'lowered price' into the definition.  That should not be there.  This definition does not and should not define a cause.  A definition says what something is.  Answering how it came to be answers another question.

A fish is surrounded by water on all sides.  Fish are in a sense, unaware of water.  Price is a function of a capitalist market when Jevons Paradox results.  Capitalism is the water.  Price is the fish.  Other kinds of markets prevent Jevons Paradox. 

Introducing price into a definition of Jevons paradox obscures that capitalism is the actual cause that produces a lowered price.  This is a common bait and switch technique that misdirect attention away from a contradiction of capitalism onto another cause.  Only a capitalist market results in Jevons Paradox.


This video does a good job at introducing the paradox without ever mentioning the water in which we swim.  The problem is that ignoring the 'C' word results in discussions which only talk about putting patches on the economic tire.  When in fact we need a new tire.  Patches will not work.  See if you can find the tire patches as you watch it.  They are there.  So many you can't see the tire at the end.