# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is desertification? Discover its causes and consequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UN, which has been fighting desertification since 1994, defines it as the process of land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas as a result of various climatic and human factors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This presentation investigates the intersection of the human right to water and the concept of degrowth, a political and economic philosophy that challenges the notion of unlimited economic growth and emphasizes the radical redistribution of resources and power. Despite the recognition of the right to water, the current international human rights framework has failed to address environmental degradation and inequality, particularly regarding the unequal distribution of water resources. Although degrowth is gaining momentum in scholarship, activism, and policy circles as the climate crisis deepens, its implications for law and human rights remain underexplored.

In this presentation, Dr Birsha Ohdedar will first examine the links between growth, unsustainable water exploitation, and the human right to water in law and policy. He then discusses the potential of degrowth to transform the right to water by examining legal principles around the commons, solidarity, democratic decentralization, and their intersections with degrowth literature. Finally, he outlines some of the challenges and opportunities of reframing the human right to water through the lens of degrowth.

This is a hybrid event being held at Newcastle law School, Newcastle University, 19-24 Windsor Terrace, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4HQ

To attend online or for any queries, plese email Dr Emily Jones who will send a link for the online event, the day before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This presentation investigates the intersection of the human right to water and the concept of degrowth, a political and economic philosophy that challenges the notion of unlimited economic growth and emphasizes the radical redistribution of resources and power.

# data[].attributes.body
Doughnut Economics: Balances social well-being with the ecological limits of the planet. In place in Amsterdam, Brussels...where else? Case studies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Kate Raworth | Exploring Doughnut Economics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humanity's 21st century challenge is to meet the needs of all within the means of the planet. In other words, to ensure that no one falls short on life's essentials (from food and housing to healthcare and political voice), while ensuring that collectively we do not overshoot our pressure on Earth's life-supporting systems, on which we fundamentally depend - such as a stable climate, fertile soils, and a protective ozone layer. The Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries is a playfully serious approach to framing that challenge, and it acts as a compass for human progress this century.
The Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries (2017)
The environmental ceiling consists of nine planetary boundaries, as set out by Rockstrom et al, beyond which lie unacceptable environmental degradation and potential tipping points in Earth systems. The twelve dimensions of the social foundation are derived from internationally agreed minimum social standards, as identified by the world's governments in the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015. Between social and planetary boundaries lies an environmentally safe and socially just space in which humanity can thrive.

If you want to look deeper into the Doughnut, and Doughnut Economics, join us at Doughnut Economics Action Lab where we dive into much more detail on what it means for transforming our economies.

See you in the Action Lab!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The doughnut of planetary boundaries and social boundaries defines a safe and just space for humanity to thrive in.

# data[].attributes.body
Detroit after bankruptcy "Importantly, local actors have embraced a plan that seeks to improve the quality of life for the city’s residents in the context of irreversible degrowth"

# data[].attributes.body
Collective Viewings of Value(s) and the Struggle for What is Valuable: The Case of Grassroots Initiatives in Greece

# data[].attributes.body
Green Growth is not a sufficient strategy to preventing the worst climate disasters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decoupling debunked – Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report reviews the empirical and theoretical literature to assess the validity of this hypothesis. The conclusion is both overwhelmingly clear and sobering: not only is there no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures on anywhere near the scale needed to deal with environmental breakdown, but also, and perhaps more importantly, such decoupling appears unlikely to happen in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Green Growth and Jevons paradox: "when technological advancements make a resource more efficient to use...the cost of using the resource drops...and overall demand increasing, causing total resource consumption to rise"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coal-burning factories in 19th-century Manchester, England. Improved technology allowed coal to fuel the Industrial Revolution, greatly increasing the consumption of coal.

In economics, the Jevons paradox (; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological advancements make a resource more 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 elastic, this results in overall demand increasing, causing total resource consumption to rise. Governments have typically expected efficiency gains to lower resource consumption, rather than anticipating possible increases due to the Jevons paradox.

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.

The issue has been re-examined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved 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.

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. 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. Conservation policies that increase cost of use (such as cap and trade or green taxes) can be used to control the rebound effect.

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."

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.

Although Jevons originally focused on coal, the concept has since been extended to other resources, e.g., water usage. 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.

Elastic Demand: A 20% increase in efficiency causes a 40% increase in travel. Fuel consumption increases and the Jevons paradox occurs.

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 for fuel. 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 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, 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.

The size of the direct rebound effect is dependent on the price elasticity of demand for the good. 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.

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.

Conditions

The following conditions are necessary for a Jevons paradox to occur:

1) Technological change which increases efficiency or productivity

2) The efficiency/productivity boost must result in a decreased consumer price for such goods or services

3) That reduced price must drastically increase quantity demanded (demand curve must be highly elastic)

Khazzoom-Brookes postulate

In the 1980s, economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes revisited the Jevons paradox for the case of society's energy use. Brookes, then chief economist at the UK Atomic Energy Authority, argued that attempts to reduce energy consumption by increasing 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.

In 1992, the economist Harry Saunders dubbed the hypothesis that improvements in energy efficiency work to increase (rather than decrease) energy consumption the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, and argued that the hypothesis is broadly supported by neoclassical growth theory (the mainstream economic theory of capital accumulation, 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.

According to Saunders, increased 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 microeconomic level (looking at an individual market), even with the rebound effect, improvements in energy efficiency usually result in reduced energy consumption. That is, the rebound effect is usually less than 100%. However, at the 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.

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. 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 fuels.

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. However, other environmental economists argue that, while the Jevons paradox may occur in some situations, the empirical evidence for its widespread applicability is limited.

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). 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. To ensure that efficiency-enhancing technological improvements reduce fuel use, efficiency gains can be paired with government intervention that reduces demand (e.g., green taxes, cap and trade, or higher emissions standards). The ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and 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." 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.

This section needs expansion with: sourced examples and additional citations. You can help by adding to it.

Agriculture

Increasing the 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.

Artificial Intelligence

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has referenced the Jevons paradox when describing artificial intelligence. 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.

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

1. ^ Sorrell, Steve (2009). "Exploring Jevons' Paradox". Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 136-164. ISBN 978-0-230-58310-8.

2. ^ Bauer, Diana; Papp, Kathryn (18 March 2009). "Book Review Perspectives: The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements". Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy. 5 (1). doi:10.1080/15487733.2009.11908028.

3. ^ York, Richard; McGee, Julius Alexander (2 January 2016). "Understanding the Jevons paradox". Environmental Sociology. 2 (1): 77-87. Bibcode:2016EnvSo...2...77Y. doi:10.1080/23251042.2015.1106060. S2CID 156762601.

4. ^ York, Richard (2006). "Ecological paradoxes: William Stanley Jevons and the paperless office" (PDF). Human Ecology Review. 13 (2): 143-147.

5. ^ Alcott, Blake (2008). "Historical Overview of the Jevons paradox in the Literature". In JM Polimeni; K Mayumi; M Giampietro (eds.). The Jevons Paradox and the Myth of Resource Efficiency Improvements. Earthscan. pp. 7-78. ISBN 978-1-84407-462-4.

6. ^ Dumont, A.; Mayor, B.; López-Gunn, E. (2013). "Is the Rebound Effect or Jevons Paradox a Useful Concept for Better Management of Water Resources? Insights from the Irrigation Modernisation Process in Spain". Aquatic Procedia. 1: 64-76. Bibcode:2013AqPro...1...64D. doi:10.1016/j.aqpro.2013.07.006.

7. ^ Di Baldassarre, Giuliano; Wanders, Niko; AghaKouchak, Amir; Kuil, Linda; Rangecroft, Sally; Veldkamp, Ted I. E.; Garcia, Margaret; van Oel, Pieter R.; Breinl, Korbinian; Van Loon, Anne F. (November 2018). "Water shortages worsened by reservoir effects". Nature Sustainability. 1 (11): 617-622. Bibcode:2018NatSu...1..617D. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0159-0. ISSN 2398-9629. S2CID 134508048.

8. ^ Small, Kenneth A.; Kurt Van Dender (21 September 2005). "The Effect of Improved Fuel Economy on Vehicle Miles Traveled: Estimating the Rebound Effect Using U.S. State Data, 1966-2001". Policy and Economics.

9. ^ Chan, Nathan W.; Gillingham, Kenneth (1 March 2015). "The Microeconomic Theory of the Rebound Effect and Its Welfare Implications". Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 2 (1): 133-159. doi:10.1086/680256. ISSN 2333-5955. S2CID 3681642.

10. ^ Saunders, Harry D. (October 1992). "The Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate and Neoclassical Growth". The Energy Journal. 13 (4): 131-148. doi:10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol13-No4-7. JSTOR 41322471. S2CID 154484026.

11. ^ Herring, Horace (19 July 1999). "Does energy efficiency save energy? The debate and its consequences". Applied Energy. 63 (3): 209-226. Bibcode:1999ApEn...63..209H. doi:10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00030-6. ISSN 0306-2619.

12. ^ Sorrell, Steve (April 2009). "Jevons' Paradox revisited: The evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency". Energy Policy. 37 (4): 1456-1469. Bibcode:2009EnPol..37.1456S. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.003.

13. ^ Greening, Lorna; David L. Greene; Carmen Difiglio (2000). "Energy efficiency and consumption-the rebound effect-a survey". Energy Policy. 28 (6-7): 389-401. Bibcode:2000EnPol..28..389A. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5.

14. ^ Ryan, Lisa; Campbell, Nina (2012). "Spreading the net: the multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements". IEA Energy Papers. doi:10.1787/20792581.

15. ^ Owen, David (20 December 2010). "Annals of Environmentalism: The Efficiency Dilemma". The New Yorker. pp. 78-.

16. ^ Gillingham, Kenneth; Kotchen, Matthew J.; Rapson, David S.; Wagner, Gernot (23 January 2013). "Energy policy: The rebound effect is overplayed". Nature. 493 (7433): 475-476. Bibcode:2013Natur.493..475G. doi:10.1038/493475a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 23344343. S2CID 3220092.

17. ^ Potter, Andrew (13 February 2007). "Planet-friendly design? Bah, humbug". . 120 (5): 14. Archived from the original on 14 December 2007.

18. ^ Strassel, Kimberley A. (17 May 2001). "Conservation Wastes Energy". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 13 November 2005.

19. ^ Gottron, Frank (30 July 2001). "Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand?" (PDF). National Council for Science and the Environment.

20. ^ Laitner, John A.; De Canio, Stephen J.; Peters, Irene (2003). "Incorporating Behavioural, Social, and Organizational Phenomena in the Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation Options". Society, Behaviour, and Climate Change Mitigation. Advances in Global Change Research. 8: 1-64. doi:10.1007/0-306-48160-X_1. ISBN 978-0-7923-6802-1.

21. ^ Freire-González, Jaume (1 February 2021). "Governing Jevons' Paradox: Policies and systemic alternatives to avoid the rebound effect". Energy Research & Social Science. 72: 101893. Bibcode:2021ERSS...7201893F. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101893. S2CID 234020339.

22. ^ Siami, Navid; Winter, Ralph A. (1 September 2021). "Jevons' paradox revisited: Implications for climate change". Economics Letters. 206: 109955. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109955.

23. ^ "Drones, crops and Jevons' Paradox". Centre for Society, Technology and Values. 22 August 2016.

24. ^ Hamilton, Anita (January 28, 2025). "Jevons Paradox: Why Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella Says It Applies to AI Too". .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In economics, the Jevons paradox (; sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological advancements make a resource more 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 elastic, this results in overall demand increasing, causing total resource consumption to rise.