Jevons Paradox is often misunderstood and misapplied.
Improving efficiency of coal burning and extraction can increase use of coal, especially if no alternative exists and it is the bottleneck for economic development. But if you develop a more efficient technology that doesn’t burn coal, it’s not going to automatically mean more coal will be used. Natural gas, wind, and solar have all increased in absolute terms in the last two decades in the US while coal burning has halved in absolute terms, reducing overall absolute grid emissions in the US.
Anyway, just wanted to point that out. (But I will say Jevons Paradox is a good argument against just relying on improved internal combustion engine efficiency in hybrid cars and buses vs using another energy source for transportation entirely, like renewable and nuclear electricity for trains, electric buses and electric cars.)
> it’s not going to automatically mean more coal will be used. Natural gas, wind, and solar have all increased in absolute terms in the last two decades in the US while coal burning has halved in absolute terms, reducing overall absolute grid emissions in the US.
In a tightly interconnected global economy it is disingenuous to disconnect the energy usage of one country or region from another.
US coal usage goes down because the things we used to build with that energy are now built in China. Solar panels in the US are cheaper than ever because manufacturing has switched to being 80% Chinese production, and guess where the energy to build those solar panels comes from? Coal.
As you can clearly see no source of energy has decreased overtime globally.
Looking at local energy production is just an accounting trick, but the planet doesn't really care. You can't combat global warming by saying "look, technically we didn't produce that energy on our shores!"
If you forced China to decrease its use of fossil fuels you would immediately feel the impact on the global economy. Just because the power plants aren't within our borders doesn't mean that's not energy being consumed for our benefit.
Improving efficiency of coal burning and extraction can increase use of coal, especially if no alternative exists and it is the bottleneck for economic development. But if you develop a more efficient technology that doesn’t burn coal, it’s not going to automatically mean more coal will be used. Natural gas, wind, and solar have all increased in absolute terms in the last two decades in the US while coal burning has halved in absolute terms, reducing overall absolute grid emissions in the US.
Anyway, just wanted to point that out. (But I will say Jevons Paradox is a good argument against just relying on improved internal combustion engine efficiency in hybrid cars and buses vs using another energy source for transportation entirely, like renewable and nuclear electricity for trains, electric buses and electric cars.)