I think personal change is important, but mostly because it helps to change the cultural/political climate.

Although the fact that we bought a house specifically so we could walk to work, to restaurants, etc., and paid a housing premium as a result, does impact "the world," I don't think ultimately it makes much difference as a pure calculation of energy saved.

It may, however, set an example for others, promote the value/desirability of dense urban living, which may lead to political and infrasturture changes that are meaningful. Not just poor people live in the city anymore, and the political influence of city dwellers, and their energy efficient political desires (sidewalks, transit, parks instead of spawling backyards) get fulfilled.

Individual actions do count and are not just absorbed by a new Hummer burning more oil.  We are all part of social web and information is communicated and meaning is realized much faster than any parts or subsets of the whole system can ever be cognizant of.  Live according to your ideals.  They do matter and they do affect the whole world.  Really.

Go ahead and conserve.  There's lots of good reasons to do so, but it won't save the world for the same reasons that increasing food production won't make a difference in the long-term (populations will just rise).

The more people that conserve the better, but as long as there's a significant number of jerks, we're all screwed.  It's just that the jerks will be screwed harder. ;)

Also, investing in future oil happens to have the side effect of making you rich (if you're right), which will give you more clout in the world of the future to have your ideas heard and implemented.

The main down side of course is that if you guess wrong about the future, you pay a real price, unlike with conservation where you still save money even if the oil situation doesn't quite go the way you expect. However most Peak Oil proponents seem to be quite confident about their predictions, so this should not be much of an issue for them.

1. As markincalgary says, the idea is known as the Jevons Paradox, after the 19thC English economist who found that efficiency improvements seemed to increase the consumption of coal, through expanded use (its cheaper, so why not use more?).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Okay, we have a name for an idea. That doesn't make it true, no more than the name "perpetual motion" means that a permanently spinning flywheel is  possible.

What's curious is that people throw out the phrase "Jevons Paradox" as if it were as confirmed a phenomenon as the Law of Gravity.

Is there any evidence that Jevons Paradox is true?  Under what conditions does it operate?

After spending a few hours on the Web, I found that the more general name is the Rebound Effect and that:

"Under certain circumstances, the rebound effect could actually turn an increase in efficiency into an increase in demand. However this has only happened in very special cases such as in some developing countries or in new markets such as the coal market in the mid 1800s or the electricity market in the early 1900s. For mature markets, it is generally accepted that although real the rebound effect is limited. The actual rebound depends on many variables, including specific resource, the specific device and how developed the resource market and overall economy are.
Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand? (CRS Reports)

2. I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the ethical implications of the argument.  It's probably true that the national homicide statistics won't be affected whether or not I murder my neighbor with the irritating pale blue eye.  Yet we usually choose not to commit murders, and we call our decisions moral.  

By the same reasoning, shouldn't we refrain from wasting energy even though our individual Megajoules won't make all that much difference?   It's a matter of morality.

However, I thing my responsibility goes further. I believe this is mainly a political issue and should be addressed like that. That means for me to get involved in local politics. I think there are quite a number of things we can do. I also think even further that anybody with a full deck and who knows this issue, is morally obliged to take action. Just cutting down a little bit on gas consumption is not enough.

Conservation is dead.

"Conservation" is using an abundant resource wisely in order to ensure that there will be enough for the future. Conservation is a choice. Deprivation is not.

Conservation died in 1980, with the election of Reagan in America. That was the twenty year lead time we needed to build a new, efficient economy.

What we need to learn now is not how to "conserve" but HOW TO DO WITHOUT. That is not conservation.

It doesn't matter if Jevon's Paradox is "true." There are shortages coming, period. It doesn't matter that the energy I have freed up by downscaling my life is used up by Mr Hummer Driver. What counts is that I HAVE PREPARED MYSELF FOR THE PAIN OF THE COMING ECONOMIC CONTRACTION.

People are still under the delusion that if we all "conserve" we can somehow "get through" the coming crisis.  That's not going to happen.

Get used to a severely downscaled life, and it won't seem so painful when it's forced upon us by depletion.

Jevon's Paradox is alive and well, but so am I.

This is what I mean by delusional, not to sound mean-spirited.

Cut back living standards FOR YOUR OWN PRESERVATION. The days of having a "moral responsibility to conserve" are ending.

I can't stress this enough to friends, who say things like: "I really got on so-and-so's case for leaving lights on around the house." This guilt-tripping has to end.

The new approach must be NOT "you're a bad person for using so much energy" but "you're only screwing yourself by not preparing for what things are going to be like in a couple of years. Do you really want to keep on hemorrhaging energy, and therefore money?"

On the other hand, I'm really going to miss many aspects of modern living so I kind of feel like living it up a bit before the party ends.

If it were up to me, I would ban any further mention of the idea that "if you don't use it, someone else will" on this blog.

If you actually read what congressman Bartlett has to say at http://www.energybulletin.net/4733.html he describes Jevons Paradox in this manner:

We must not squander the opportunity that we have. Jevons Paradox becomes applicable here. Just a word about what Jevons Paradox is because I am going to mention it a time or two again. But Jevons Paradox says that frequently when one works to solve a problem, they really make the situation worse.

   Let me give one little example. Suppose there is a small businessman who owns a store. He is really concerned about peak oil, and he is concerned about energy, and he wants to do something. His little store is using $1,000 worth of electricity a month, and he decides that he can really cut that use. So he does several things. He gets a storm door. He puts on storm windows. He insulates more. He turns down the thermostat, and he asks his workers to wear sweaters. And he is successful because he reduces his electric bill from $1,000 to $500. Almost no matter what he does with that $500, he has just made the situation worse by doing that.

   Let me explain. One of the things that he may do, and it is a natural thing for a small businessperson to do, he may decide, I could hire more people and have a bigger business if I expanded. And so now he will expand, and he will still be using as much energy. Or if he decides to invest his money, if he invests his money in the bank, the bank will lend his money out five or six times, and at least some of those loans will be to small business people. And what the small business people will do is to create jobs and use energy. So the store owner is concerned about energy and the environment and being a responsible citizen, cutting his use of electricity, because everybody did not do it, because only he did it and nobody took advantage of the opportunity that was presented because he used less energy, he really contributed to the problem.

So you can see that I am not condemning individuals that make the effort to conserve but rather see the bigger picture that it will take everyone getting on the same page.. And without leadership, we are not as a nation, going to make those efforts to conserve. But we can be the purveyors of the message to start conserving more but is it too late?? Time will tell..
 And trust me when it come's to little conservation measure I try to take them. When I wrap every window in my house with plastic and caulk around every window doors in the winter, I do it to conserve energy. Yet I know of few others that do it!!

Some may argue that doing what is best for number one over the short term is inherent, it is the nature of the beast --and from an evolutionary perspective they are partly right. If that trait was not in your ancestor, you probably would not be here. But then again, if the trait of doing good things for the tribe (the nuclear family, the extended family, etc.) were not also inherently there, you probably would not be here for that reason also.

So you see, there are two inherited traits within the human creature: 1)Looking out for number one, and 2)Looking out for the welfare of your local herd. These traits often come into conflict with one another. (The war within is the war without. But that is another topic.)

We see the conflict here in the comments. There is a strong impulse in some to do only what is best for number one and in the short term.

But for others, there is a strong impulse to do what appears to be right for the community (yes, even though there is no visible and immediate payback for the "me" --think about it: what payback did your mother get for wiping your behind when you were a baby? she did not do it for profit. she did out this thing we call "a mother's love" --maybe now you see better why the tribe of Sheena is pounding their hooves for Cindy of Crawford, the She-Hen who single handedly instigated their stampede with the sound of her name and the cry for her lost child.)

Back to topic. So what makes YOU behave the way you do and what makes your neighbor(s) behave as they do? It's not just money and looking out for number one. We are constantly programmed and reprogrammed by the society around us.

Behavior that was socially encouraged yesterday suddenly becomes "politically incorrect" today. Depending on your age and immediate surroundings, you can probably think back to some type of behavior that was OK yesterday but suddenly is not OK today. How did it come to be that way?

Imagine a day when burning fossil fuels and dumping the pollutants into the common air will be as politically incorrect as taking a dump in the middle of the street. On that day, no one will want to be seen driving a Hummer.

So, while Jevons Paradox is real, it is also true that efforts for conservation do have very important positive results. Not only the setting of examples but the spiritual consequences of what we do that we put out there.

Stifling debate is contraction and therefore detrimental to the human spirit. But so is misusing a valid insight like that of the Jevons Paradox to disparage constructive behavior.

Of course we should all conserve when we can, and we should also push for longterm sustainable solutions as well.

I think that anything we do to reduce the price of fossil fuels will only encourage others to consume their "fair share" or even more. If Americans reduce the Indians or Chinese will see the opportunity to consume more.

Ultimately the real problem is that an increasing number of people are consuming a decreasing amount of resources. We can conserve and generate efficiencies but ultimately another mouth is born to feed and a body to shelter and clothe.

I think Jay Hanson is correct. The real problem seems to be overshoot, not just over consumption. If we can't successfully face the threat of overshoot I think great sorry will follow.

Peak Oil, while very important to us all, is just a speed limiting bump on the road to Peak People.

michaelmorgan[ã+]bellsouth[d·t]net

When people at the fringes buy a Prius, brew biodiesel, or ride a bicycle, they show it's possible.  That is a solid accomplishment, but I don't think it can really trigger a broader change.

Changes come with the panics, when people cast around for what's possible, and see the examples at the fringes.

Why not?  Conservation/waste is a moral issue.  Social approval and disapproval are powerful means of enforcing moral behavior.  What if our media were to celebrate people who live simply?  What if the heroes of movies were gardeners and bicyclists rather than sociopaths?

Maybe it's going overboard to stone to death the owners of Humvees (though sometimes one is tempted).  Moral suasion can be done subtly and with sensitivity, rather than with obnoxious moralizing.  Still, we're going to need every means at our disposal to turn around the big ship of consumerism.

We need:
morality/ethics/religion
economic arguments
political arguments
pragmatic arguments  

From all objective evidence, it seems to me the car has already gone off the cliff and the passengers are arguing about whose fault it is and what might be the best way to turn this thing around.  Folks, I really don't think it much matters at this point.  Whatever it is that makes you proud, you better get it done while you can, but if you don't already have your parachute packed, you're in trouble.

Living under my old parachute in the cloud forests of Central America,  your humble servant, Señor Bood  

You say:
"Why not?  Conservation/waste is a moral issue. "

My point is that it's too late. When "conservation" is no longer a choice but a necessity, it's not a moral issue anymore but one of survival. We're entering a whole new world. People simply aren't going to be able to do what they've done before.

I'm trying to WARN THEM, not shame them.

I agree that in a voluntary setting, everyone's individual efforts to conserve are important, especially as role models that can diffuse the concept more widely.

But consider an oil-related situation where this does not work: tradeable carbon credits for Kyoto. Under the carbon credit scheme, a company that conserves can sell the right to create more CO2 (by burning more fuel) to another company. The conserving company profits from both lower expenses for fuel, as well as extra income from selling surplus carbon credits. The company that buys carbon credits pays for the right to pollute.

Yes, the polluter pays; yes, the good guys profit. But I don't think the environment sees any benefit at all.

The regulation mechanism almost mandates a zero sum game: the efficient company's gains are directly offset, 1:1, by the inefficient company's profligacy. Total CO2 will equal the level allowed by the regulations.

I suspect that any rationing scheme (gasoline in the future?) that allows trading of allowances will result in the same offsetting behaviour.

So let's make up annother term that is more precise to the issue, let's call it " the Scales of Abraham"

Therefore, according to the Scales of Abraham, any one countries decrease in usage of a finite recource, allows a competing country (such as China) to balance out the "scales of use" (= total amount used) by using more.

T = total amount of petroleum used

E = Efficient country(ies)

C = Competing countries

E + C = T

But now we must factor in:

S = Oil Savings (over time)

I = Increased usage (over time)

N = No energy savings

So if the value of I = S --------> E - S +C +I =T----------->- T = N

This is exactly what we have seen in the past. The "efficiency" gained in 1980-1990 has been mitigated by use of Oil/energy in Competing countries. In fact it has been argued our "productivity" gains are almost completely dependent on outsourcing such activities to countries where energy usage has been growing (like China and India for example).

Secondly, the SUV craze has wiped out the gasoline savings made in the 80's. this is a case for jevons parodox to actualy apply to conservation efforts...as the main method of Increasing MPG was to reduce the wieght of the car, and not any real gains in the ICE engine, it is possible to declare that the "parodox" jevon proposed about coal, certainly applies to another (psuedo)Finite recource as well, namely Petroleum.

The sooner we prepare for and make the transition, the easier it will be.  The time would better spent helping each other to learn a new lifestyle and get on with it.  I have chosen to wean myself from fossil fuels now rather than later.  But which ever way we go about it, we will all be in the same boat in the very near future.

But that's not the point. The point is: will you be able to look at yourself in the mirror when you still gulp all that oil & gas, even with the knowlegde you have about peak-oil and the effects putting all that CO2 in the air?
Besides, as the last anonymous points out; in the end everybody has to do without, so why not prepare today? When you still can by a good axe and a good handsaw, drill a well and learn how to grow crops.

And yes, it is making an example to my neighbourhood. At first they didn't allow the peak-oil reality to enter their brains. But by watching me act, they start to think. And they come to me to ask about it.

And yes, it is possible to create you own tribe in your neighbourhood. Not  by preaching peak-oil. Just by doing things for them. Like fixing their cars, taking care of their pets or children. That is all you need to do to create a tribe. In working together you get to know each other. You'll know who's to trust and who will make a fuss. Another good way is to lend things from all over your neighborhood. You get to know the people, they learn to trust you when you return the items without damage. After that they will go and lend stuff from you, so they can earn their trust with you.

O yes, you will need your social contacts badly when the hammer hits...

Like I said, I want to do something, because I cannot explain to my children why I didn't do anything. Moral responsibility, things like that.

Now I can do two things:

• I buy the Hummer or
  
• I buy a bicycle

What shall I do?