Does Jevons Paradox apply to fuel efficiency in cars?
According to Wikipedia, Jevons Paradox states that "as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource tends to increase, rather than decrease." From what I read, the Paradox does not apply to all resources, but I was wondering if it applies to gasoline (especially in developing countries where the price elasticity of fuel tends to be higher). Also, if fuel efficient cars increase fuel consumption, is there a pro-environment justification for increasing fuel efficiency without curbing emissions per gallon of gasoline?
Correction: I meant to say that in developing countries the price elasticity of personal transportation (cars, motorcycles, etc.) tends to be higher.
If you make cars and you indroduce a technological improvement to one process, this department will get a cheaper output and the price of the product will eventually decrease. The consumption of that resource will be limited by other inputs and Jevons Paradox will not apply.
It´s true that general technological improvements decrease costs and prices and if elasticity is greater that 1, people will buy more goods. A general technological improvement involves all parts of the car, not only engines or wheels or electronic systems and from a social, mankind point of view, the way roads are made can be also considered. An improvement in roads engineering will eventually decrease total social costs of transportation.
What governments do to avoid an increase in consumption is to charge taxes on petrols and cars. The difference between prices of cars and fuel in different countries obey to different taxes charged. In some countries highways are private and you have to pay an amount of money to use them.
An environmental reason is always present to discourage the use of cars.
I believe it applies, but it will depend on the degree to which fuel efficiency improves. When people have become accustomed to higher prices, simply having technology which makes their fuel go longer will probably encourage to do just as much - if not more - in their cars, as they had before. Rather than realise the ‘benefit’ (paying less fuel, to do the same amount of driving), I think people will tend take ‘the gain’ (do more driving but pay the same as they were before). The reason is because fuel is an ‘enabler’ - it gets you from A to B. You can go on nice drives through the country, commute to work by car instead of bus, get to your friend’s place for a BBQ. If people can afford to, they probably will - and therefore the paradox likely applies.
But there may be a couple of simultaneous affects, too. General sentiment about environmentalism / emmissions, and the affordabilitiy & practicality of hybrid / alternative fuel cars, may mean that overall people will use less fuel.
In developing countries, I’d say it would apply - except where that country is a laggard that becomes an early adopter of technology. Take the case of mobile phones. Many ex-soviet and african (nigeria, bulgaria, romania) nations lagged behind in fixed-line telecoms (laying phone lines), but now the affordability and prevalence of mobile phones means that many people have them, even if they’ve never had a landline phone. So if hybrid or alternative fuel technologies quickly get substantially better & cheaper, developing countries may well ’skip’ the stage of widespread dependence of gas, and go straight to efficient technology. In practice this will require easily deployed, cheap technology - probably a long way off in the energy market. The most likely would be biofuels, but given the widespread food shortages at the moment, it probly wont happen.
As you suggest above, improving emissions efficiency of the fuel itself will be critical to reducing environmental impact. Improving engine efficiency, and using less of harmful product is a first step. Reducing the emissions content of fuel itself will help, because ultimately, the goal would be to have a product with no or minimal environmental impact. In the long run, this will probably mean energy must be derived from natural or renewable sources — unless we can develop & package nuclear fussion to power our cars
References :
If you make cars and you indroduce a technological improvement to one process, this department will get a cheaper output and the price of the product will eventually decrease. The consumption of that resource will be limited by other inputs and Jevons Paradox will not apply.
It´s true that general technological improvements decrease costs and prices and if elasticity is greater that 1, people will buy more goods. A general technological improvement involves all parts of the car, not only engines or wheels or electronic systems and from a social, mankind point of view, the way roads are made can be also considered. An improvement in roads engineering will eventually decrease total social costs of transportation.
What governments do to avoid an increase in consumption is to charge taxes on petrols and cars. The difference between prices of cars and fuel in different countries obey to different taxes charged. In some countries highways are private and you have to pay an amount of money to use them.
An environmental reason is always present to discourage the use of cars.
References :