View source for Jevons paradox

{{Short description|Efficiency leads to increased demand}}
{{Use British English|date=November 2016}}
{{Good article}}
[[File:CottonopolisCropped.jpg|right|300px|thumb|upright=1.7|alt=Engraving of a view of Manchester from a distance, showing factories, smokestacks, and smoke.|Coal-burning factories in [[Cottonopolis|19th-century Manchester]], England. Improved technology allowed coal to fuel the [[Industrial Revolution]], greatly increasing the consumption of coal.]]

In economics, the '''Jevons paradox''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|dʒ|ɛ|v|ə|n|z}}; sometimes '''Jevons effect''') occurs when [[technological change|technological advancements]] make a [[resource (economics)|resource]] more [[efficiency|efficient]] to use (thereby reducing the amount needed for a single application); however, as the cost of using the resource drops, if the price is highly [[price elasticity of demand|elastic]], this results in overall [[Induced demand|demand increasing]], causing total resource consumption to rise.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Sorrell |first1=Steve |title=Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect |date=2009 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=London |isbn=978-0-230-58310-8 |pages=136–164 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230583108_7 |language=en |chapter=Exploring Jevons' Paradox}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bauer |first1=Diana |last2=Papp |first2=Kathryn |title=Book Review Perspectives: The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements |journal=Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy |date=18 March 2009 |volume=5 |issue=1 |doi=10.1080/15487733.2009.11908028 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=York |first1=Richard |last2=McGee |first2=Julius Alexander |title=Understanding the Jevons paradox |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23251042.2015.1106060 |journal=Environmental Sociology |date=2 January 2016 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=77–87 |doi=10.1080/23251042.2015.1106060|bibcode=2016EnvSo...2...77Y |s2cid=156762601 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="York">{{cite journal|last=York |first=Richard |title=Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office |journal=Human Ecology Review |year=2006 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=143–147 |url=http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her132/york.pdf |access-date=5 May 2015}}</ref> Governments have typically expected efficiency gains to lower [[resource consumption]], rather than anticipating possible increases due to the Jevons paradox.<ref name=Alcott1>{{cite journal|doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020|hdl=1942/22574 |last=Alcott |first=Blake |title=Jevons' paradox |journal=[[Ecological Economics (journal)|Ecological Economics]] |date=July 2005 |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=9–21 |bibcode=2005EcoEc..54....9A |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

In 1865, the English economist [[William Stanley Jevons]] observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.<ref name="Coal Question">{{cite book |last=Jevons |first=William Stanley |title=The Coal Question |publisher=[[Macmillan and Company]] |location=London |year=1866 |edition=2nd |chapter=VII |isbn=978-1-78987-646-8 |oclc=464772008 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gAAKAAAAIAAJ&q=editions:AAotKDT6KKcC&pg=PR3 |access-date=21 July 2008}}</ref><ref name="Alcott2">{{cite book |last=Alcott |first=Blake |title=The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements |url=https://archive.org/details/jevonsparadoxmyt00poli |url-access=limited |year=2008 |publisher=Earthscan |pages=[https://archive.org/details/jevonsparadoxmyt00poli/page/n23 7]–78 | editor=JM Polimeni |editor2=K Mayumi |editor3=M Giampietro |chapter=Historical Overview of the Jevons paradox in the Literature |isbn=978-1-84407-462-4 }}</ref>

The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption [[rebound effect (conservation)|rebound effects]] from improved [[Efficient energy use|energy efficiency]]. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency also lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which increases the quantity demanded. This may counteract (to some extent) the reduction in use from improved efficiency. Additionally, improved efficiency increases real incomes and accelerates [[economic growth]], further increasing the demand for resources.  The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, and the improved efficiency results in a faster rate of resource utilization.<ref name="Alcott2"/>

Considerable debate exists about the size of the rebound in energy efficiency and the relevance of the Jevons paradox to [[energy conservation]]. Some dismiss the effect, while others worry that it may be self-defeating to pursue [[sustainability]] by increasing energy efficiency.<ref name=Alcott1/> Some environmental economists have proposed that efficiency gains be coupled with conservation policies that keep the cost of use the same (or higher) to avoid the Jevons paradox.<ref name="Wackernagel">{{cite journal |last1=Wackernagel |first1=Mathis |first2=William |last2=Rees |year=1997 |title=Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: Economics from an ecological footprint perspective |journal=Ecological Economics |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=3–24 |doi=10.1016/S0921-8009(96)00077-8  |bibcode=1997EcoEc..20....3W }}</ref> Conservation policies that increase cost of use (such as [[cap and trade]] or [[green taxes]]) can be used to control the rebound effect.<ref name="Energy Efficiency Policies">{{cite journal|last1=Freire-González|first1=Jaume|last2=Puig-Ventosa|first2=Ignasi|title=Energy Efficiency Policies and the Jevons Paradox |journal=International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy |date=2015 |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=69–79 |url=https://ideas.repec.org/a/eco/journ2/2015-01-06.html |access-date=29 May 2015}}</ref>

==History==
[[File:PSM V11 D660 William Stanley Jevons.jpg|right|thumb|upright=1|alt=Engraving of William Stanley Jevons|[[William Stanley Jevons]], after whom the effect is named]]

The Jevons paradox was first described by the English economist [[William Stanley Jevons]] in his 1865 book ''[[The Coal Question]]''. Jevons observed that [[England]]'s consumption of [[coal]] soared after [[James Watt]] introduced the [[Watt steam engine]], which greatly improved the efficiency of the coal-fired [[steam engine]] from [[Thomas Newcomen]]'s earlier design. Watt's innovations made coal a more cost-effective power source, leading to the increased use of the steam engine in a wide range of industries. This in turn increased total coal consumption, even as the amount of coal required for any particular application fell. Jevons argued that improvements in [[fuel efficiency]] tend to increase (rather than decrease) fuel use, writing: "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth."<ref name="Coal Question"/>

At that time, many in Britain worried that coal reserves were rapidly dwindling, but some experts opined that improving technology would reduce coal consumption. Jevons argued that this view was incorrect, as further increases in efficiency would tend to increase the use of coal. Hence, improving technology would tend to increase the rate at which England's coal deposits were being depleted, and could not be relied upon to solve the problem.<ref name="Coal Question"/><ref name="Alcott2"/>

Although Jevons originally focused on coal, the concept has since been extended to other resources, e.g., [[water use|water usage]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dumont|first1=A.|last2=Mayor|first2=B.|last3=López-Gunn|first3=E.|title=Is the Rebound Effect or Jevons Paradox a Useful Concept for Better Management of Water Resources? Insights from the Irrigation Modernisation Process in Spain|journal=Aquatic Procedia|date=2013|volume=1|pages=64–76|doi=10.1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.006|doi-access=free|bibcode=2013AqPro...1...64D }}</ref>  The Jevons paradox is also found in [[socio-hydrology]], in the safe development paradox called the ''reservoir effect'', where construction of a reservoir to reduce the risk of water shortage can instead exacerbate that risk, as increased water availability leads to more development and hence more water consumption.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Di Baldassarre |first1=Giuliano |last2=Wanders |first2=Niko |last3=AghaKouchak |first3=Amir |last4=Kuil |first4=Linda |last5=Rangecroft |first5=Sally |last6=Veldkamp |first6=Ted I. E. |last7=Garcia |first7=Margaret |last8=van Oel |first8=Pieter R. |last9=Breinl |first9=Korbinian |last10=Van Loon |first10=Anne F. |date=November 2018 |title=Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0159-0 |journal=Nature Sustainability |language=en |volume=1 |issue=11 |pages=617–622 |doi=10.1038/s41893-018-0159-0 |bibcode=2018NatSu...1..617D |s2cid=134508048 |issn=2398-9629}}</ref>

==Cause==
{{Main|Rebound effect (conservation)}}
[[File:ElasticDemand.svg|thumb|320px|alt=Diagram showing a shallow demand curve, where a drop in price from $100 to $80 causes quantity to increase from 10 to 14|''Elastic Demand'': A 20% increase in efficiency causes a 40% increase in travel. Fuel consumption increases and the Jevons paradox occurs.]]
[[File:InelasticDemand.svg|thumb|320px|alt=Diagram showing a steep demand curve, where a drop in price from $100 to $80 causes quantity to increase from 10 to 11|''Inelastic Demand'': A 20% increase in efficiency causes a 10% increase in travel. The Jevons paradox does not occur.]]

Economists have observed that consumers tend to travel more when their cars are more fuel efficient, causing a 'rebound' in the [[demand (economics)|demand]] for fuel.<ref name="Small">{{cite journal|last=Small |first= Kenneth A. |author2=Kurt Van Dender |title = The Effect of Improved Fuel Economy on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Estimating the Rebound Effect Using U.S. State Data, 1966–2001 |journal=Policy and Economics | date = 21 September 2005 |url= http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1h6141nj |access-date=1 September 2010 }}</ref> An increase in the efficiency with which a resource (e.g., fuel) is used causes a decrease in the [[cost]] of using that resource when measured in terms of what it can achieve (e.g., travel). Generally speaking, a decrease in the cost (or price) of a [[Goods and services|good or service]] will increase the quantity demanded (the [[law of demand]]). With a lower cost for travel, consumers will travel more, increasing the demand for fuel. This increase in demand is known as the [[rebound effect (conservation)|rebound effect]], and it may or may not be large enough to offset the original drop in fuel use from the increased efficiency. The Jevons paradox occurs when the rebound effect is greater than 100%, exceeding the original efficiency gains.<ref name="Alcott2"/>

The size of the direct rebound effect is dependent on the [[price elasticity of demand]] for the good.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chan|first1=Nathan W.|last2=Gillingham|first2=Kenneth|title=The Microeconomic Theory of the Rebound Effect and Its Welfare Implications|journal=Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists|date=1 March 2015|volume=2|issue=1|pages=133–159|doi=10.1086/680256|s2cid=3681642|issn=2333-5955}}</ref> In a perfectly competitive market where fuel is the sole input used, if the price of fuel remains constant but efficiency is doubled, the effective price of travel would be halved (twice as much travel can be purchased). If in response, the amount of travel purchased more than doubles (i.e., demand is [[price elastic]]), then fuel consumption would increase, and the Jevons paradox would occur. If demand is price inelastic, the amount of travel purchased would less than double, and fuel consumption would decrease. However, goods and services generally use more than one type of input (e.g. fuel, labour, machinery), and other factors besides input cost may also affect price. These factors tend to reduce the rebound effect, making the Jevons paradox less likely to occur.<ref name="Alcott2"/>

As an example of where the paradox did not occur, large improvements in farming productivity (including the [[Third Agricultural Revolution]]) led to lower food prices but did not result in increased demand for food. (Demand for food is inelastic.)  This instead led to lower employment in the farming sector, which declined from 40% of Americans in 1900 to less than 2% in 2024.<ref name=NPR_2025-02-04 > {{ cite news | url=https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/02/04/g-s1-46018/ai-deepseek-economics-jevons-paradox | title=Why the AI world is suddenly obsessed with a 160-year-old economics paradox | last=Rosalsky  | first=Greg | newspaper=[[NPR]] | date=2025-02-04 }} </ref>

===Conditions===

The following conditions are necessary for a Jevons paradox to occur:{{ r | NPR_2025-02-04 }}

# Technological change which increases efficiency or productivity
# The efficiency/productivity boost must result in a decreased consumer price for such goods or services
# That reduced price must drastically increase quantity demanded (demand curve must be highly elastic)

==Khazzoom–Brookes postulate==
{{Main|Khazzoom–Brookes postulate}}

In the 1980s, economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes revisited the Jevons paradox for the case of society's [[World energy consumption|energy use]]. Brookes, then chief economist at the [[United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority|UK Atomic Energy Authority]], argued that attempts to reduce energy consumption by increasing [[Efficient energy use|energy efficiency]] would simply raise demand for energy in the economy as a whole. Khazzoom focused on the narrower point that the potential for rebound was ignored in mandatory performance standards for domestic appliances being set by the [[California Energy Commission]].<ref name=Saunders>{{cite journal|last1=Saunders|first1=Harry D.|title=The Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate and Neoclassical Growth|journal=The Energy Journal|date=October 1992|volume=13|issue=4|pages=131–148|jstor=41322471|doi=10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol13-No4-7|s2cid=154484026 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Herring|first=Horace|date=19 July 1999|title=Does energy efficiency save energy? The debate and its consequences|journal=Applied Energy|volume=63|issue=3|pages=209–226|issn=0306-2619|doi=10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00030-6|bibcode=1999ApEn...63..209H }}</ref>

In 1992, the economist Harry Saunders dubbed the hypothesis that improvements in [[Efficient energy use|energy efficiency]] work to increase (rather than decrease) energy consumption the ''Khazzoom–Brookes postulate'', and argued that the hypothesis is broadly supported by neoclassical [[Economic growth|growth theory]] (the mainstream economic theory of [[capital accumulation]], [[Technological change|technological progress]] and [[long-run]] economic growth). Saunders showed that the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate occurs in the [[neoclassical growth model]] under a wide range of assumptions.<ref name=Saunders/><ref name=Sorrell>{{cite journal|last1=Sorrell|first1=Steve|title=Jevons' Paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency|journal=Energy Policy|date=April 2009|volume=37|issue=4|pages=1456–1469|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003|bibcode=2009EnPol..37.1456S }}</ref>

According to Saunders, increased [[Electrical efficiency|energy efficiency]] tends to increase energy consumption by two means. First, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use (the direct rebound effect). Second, increased energy efficiency increases real incomes and leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use for the whole economy. At the [[Microeconomics|microeconomic]] level (looking at an individual market), even with the rebound effect, improvements in energy efficiency usually result in reduced energy consumption.<ref name=Greening>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5 | surname=Greening| first=Lorna | title=Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey |author2=David L. Greene |author3=Carmen Difiglio| journal=Energy Policy |volume=28 | year=2000 | pages=389–401 | issue=6–7 | bibcode=2000EnPol..28..389A}}</ref> That is, the rebound effect is usually less than 100%. However, at the [[Macroeconomics|macroeconomic]] level, more efficient (and hence comparatively cheaper) energy leads to faster economic growth, which increases energy use throughout the economy. Saunders argued that taking into account both microeconomic and macroeconomic effects, the technological progress that improves energy efficiency will tend to increase overall energy use.<ref name=Saunders/> 

==Energy conservation policy==
{{See also | Steady-state economy #Resource decoupling and the rebound effect }}
{{Sustainable energy}}

Jevons warned that fuel efficiency gains tend to increase fuel use. However, this does not imply that improved fuel efficiency is worthless if the Jevons paradox occurs; higher fuel efficiency enables greater production and a higher material [[quality of life]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ryan|first1=Lisa|last2=Campbell|first2=Nina|title=Spreading the net: the multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements|journal=IEA Energy Papers|doi=10.1787/20792581|url=http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/spreading-the-net-the-multiple-benefits-of-energy-efficiency-improvements_5k9crzjbpkkc-en|access-date=5 June 2015|year=2012|doi-access=free|url-access=subscription}}</ref> For example, a more efficient steam engine allowed the cheaper transport of goods and people that contributed to the [[Industrial Revolution]]. Nonetheless, if the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate is correct, increased fuel efficiency, by itself, will not reduce the rate of depletion of [[fossil fuel]]s.<ref name=Saunders/>

There is considerable debate about whether the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate is correct, and of the relevance of the Jevons paradox to [[energy conservation]] policy. Most governments, environmentalists and NGOs pursue policies that improve efficiency, holding that these policies will lower resource consumption and reduce environmental problems. Others, including many [[environmental economists]], doubt this 'efficiency strategy' towards [[sustainability]], and worry that efficiency gains may in fact lead to higher production and consumption. They hold that for resource use to fall, efficiency gains should be coupled with other policies that limit resource use.<ref name=Alcott1/><ref name=Sorrell/><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/20/101220fa_fact_owen|title=Annals of Environmentalism: The Efficiency Dilemma|last=Owen|first=David|date=20 December 2010|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|pages=78–}}</ref> However, other environmental economists argue that, while the Jevons paradox may occur in some situations, the empirical evidence for its widespread applicability is limited.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gillingham |first1=Kenneth |last2=Kotchen |first2=Matthew J. |last3=Rapson |first3=David S. |last4=Wagner |first4=Gernot |title=Energy policy: The rebound effect is overplayed |journal=Nature |date=23 January 2013 |volume=493 |issue=7433 |pages=475–476 |doi=10.1038/493475a |pmid=23344343 |bibcode=2013Natur.493..475G |s2cid=3220092 |language=En |issn=0028-0836|doi-access=free }}</ref>

The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that [[energy conservation]] efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of [[peak oil]]. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to enact environmental policies or pursue fuel efficiency (e.g., if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).<ref name="Potter">{{cite journal| last1=Potter | first1=Andrew | title=Planet-friendly design? Bah, humbug | journal=[[Maclean's]] |volume=120 |issue=5 | page=14 | url=http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070202_154815_4816 |date=13 February 2007 |access-date=1 September 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214235056/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070202_154815_4816|archive-date=14 December 2007}}</ref><ref name="Conservation Wastes Energy ">{{cite journal|last=Strassel |first=Kimberley A. |date=17 May 2001 |title=Conservation Wastes Energy |journal=The Wall Street Journal |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95000484 |access-date=31 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051113194327/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=95000484|archive-date=13 November 2005 }}</ref> Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.<ref name="Small"/><ref name=Greening/><ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/3492.pdf
| last=Gottron
| first= Frank
| title = Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand?
| access-date=24 February 2012
| date = 30 July 2001
| publisher = National Council for Science and the Environment}}</ref> Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with crude oil depletion.<ref>{{cite journal
|last1=Hirsch |first1= R. L.|last2= Bezdek |first2=R. |last3=and Wendling |first3= R.
|year=2006
|title=Peaking of World Oil Production and Its Mitigation
|journal=AIChE Journal
|volume=52
|issue=1
|pages= 2–8
|doi= 10.1002/aic.10747|doi-access=free
|bibcode= 2006AIChE..52....2H}}</ref> Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g., a [[fuel tax]]) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.<ref name="Wackernagel"/>

The Jevons paradox indicates that increased efficiency by itself may not reduce fuel use, and that [[sustainable energy]] policy must rely on other types of government interventions as well.<ref name="Energy Efficiency Policies"/> As the imposition of conservation standards or other government interventions that increase cost-of-use do not display the Jevons paradox, they can be used to control the rebound effect.<ref name="Energy Efficiency Policies"/> To ensure that efficiency-enhancing technological improvements reduce fuel use, efficiency gains can be paired with government intervention that reduces demand (e.g., [[ecotax|green taxes]], [[Emissions trading|cap and trade]], or higher [[emissions standard]]s). The [[ecological economics|ecological economists]] [[Mathis Wackernagel]] and [[William E. Rees (academic)|William Rees]] have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in [[natural capital]] rehabilitation."<ref name="Wackernagel"/> By mitigating the economic effects of government interventions designed to promote ecologically sustainable activities, efficiency-improving technological progress may make the imposition of these interventions more palatable, and more likely to be implemented.<ref name="Laitner DeCanio Peters">{{cite journal |last1=Laitner |first1=John A.|first2=Stephen J.|last2= De Canio |first3= Irene|last3= Peters |title=Incorporating Behavioural, Social, and Organizational Phenomena in the Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Options  |journal=Society, Behaviour, and Climate Change Mitigation |year=2003|volume=8 |pages=1–64|doi=10.1007/0-306-48160-X_1 |series=Advances in Global Change Research|isbn=978-0-7923-6802-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Freire-González |first1=Jaume |title=Governing Jevons' Paradox: Policies and systemic alternatives to avoid the rebound effect |journal=[[Energy Research & Social Science]] |date=1 February 2021 |volume=72 |pages=101893 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2020.101893|bibcode=2021ERSS...7201893F |s2cid=234020339 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Siami |first1=Navid |last2=Winter |first2=Ralph A. |title=Jevons' paradox revisited: Implications for climate change |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176521002329 |journal=[[Economics Letters]] |date=1 September 2021 |volume=206 |pages=109955 |doi=10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109955|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

== Other examples ==

{{Expand section |1=sourced examples and additional citations |section=1 |date=February 2024 |small=no}}

=== Agriculture ===
Increasing the [[Crop yield|yield]] of a crop, such as wheat, for a given area will reduce the area required to achieve the same total yield. However, increasing efficiency may make it more profitable to grow wheat and lead farmers to convert land to the production of wheat, thereby increasing land use instead.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 August 2016 |title=Drones, crops and Jevons' Paradox |url=https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-society-technology-values/blog/post/drones-crops-and-jevons-paradox |access-date=12 May 2022 |website=Centre for Society, Technology and Values |language=en}}</ref>

=== Artificial Intelligence ===
Microsoft CEO [[Satya Nadella]] has referenced the Jevons paradox when describing artificial intelligence.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamilton |first=Anita |date=January 28, 2025 |title=Jevons Paradox: Why Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Says It Applies to AI Too |url=https://www.barrons.com/articles/ai-deepseek-microsoft-jevons-paradox-f0467141 |access-date=January 30, 2025 |website=[[Barron's]] |language=en-US}}</ref>  [[Erik Brynjolfsson]] stated that he believes there will be some occupations for which the three conditions for the paradox will be met, thereby causing increased employment in those fields, such as [[radiologists]], translators, and [[coders]].{{ r | NPR_2025-02-04 }}

==See also==
* [[AI boom]], periods of increased investment and rapid advancement in artificial intelligence technology
* [[Andy and Bill's law]], new software will always consume any increase in computing power that new hardware can provide
* [[Diminishing returns]]
* [[Downs–Thomson paradox]], increasing road capacity can make traffic congestion worse
* [[Dutch disease]], strong revenue from a dominant sector renders other sectors uncompetitive and starves them
* [[Tragedy of the commons]], a phenomenon in which common resources to which access is not regulated tend to become depleted
* [[Wirth's law]], faster hardware can trigger the development of less-efficient software

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
{{Portal|Business and economics|Environment}}
* {{cite report|last1=Jenkins|first1=Jesse|last2=Nordhaus|first2=Ted|last3=Shellenberger|first3=Michael|title=Energy Emergence: Rebound and Backfire as Emergent Phenomena|url=http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/new_report_how_efficiency_can|date=17 February 2011|publisher=The Breakthrough Institute|location=Oakland, CA|access-date=29 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150525235644/http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/new_report_how_efficiency_can|archive-date=25 May 2015|url-status=dead}}
*{{cite report|author=Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology |title=Select Committee on Science and Technology Second Report |chapter-url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldsctech/21/2106.htm |series=Session 2005–06 |date=5 July 2005 |publisher=[[House of Lords]] |location=London, UK  |chapter=3: The economics of energy efficiency |author-link=Science and Technology Committee (House of Lords)}}
* {{cite report|last=Michaels |first=Robert J. |title=Energy Efficiency and Climate Policy: The Rebound Dilemma |date=6 July 2012 |publisher=Institute for Energy Research |location=Washington, D.C. |url=http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NJI_IER_MichaelsStudy_WEB_20120706_v5.pdf |access-date=5 June 2015}}

{{Economic paradoxes}}
{{Unintended consequences}}
{{Energy footer}}
{{Population}}

[[Category:Energy conservation]]
[[Category:Energy policy]]
[[Category:Environmental social science concepts]]
[[Category:Eponymous paradoxes]]
[[Category:Industrial ecology]]
[[Category:Paradoxes in economics]]