The sound of the modern world is a hum of paradoxes. It’s the constant ping of notifications on your phone, a tool designed to streamline life that somehow leaves us feeling more overwhelmed and “time-poor” than ever. It’s the silent, soaring energy demand of massive data centers, built using chips that are exponentially more efficient than their predecessors.

In our relentless pursuit of technological improvement, we are continually running into a baffling, counter-intuitive truth: Why does making something more efficient often result in us consuming more, not less?.

This is the story of the Jevons Paradox, an economic ghost from the 19th century that haunts today’s debates on everything from artificial intelligence to climate change.

Part I: The Ghost in the Machine

The paradox has deep historical roots, first articulated by the economist William Stanley Jevons in 1865. Jevons lived in Victorian Britain, an empire built upon the heat and grit of coal. The dominant anxiety of the age—the “coal question”—was the fear that the nation’s finite fuel reserves would run out, ending Britain’s historical moment.

The prevailing wisdom was that technology would save them. If engineers could make steam engines more efficient, they would use less coal and conserve the national supply.

Enter James Watt. His steam engine design, featuring the critical separate condenser, delivered a staggering efficiency gain, slashing coal consumption per unit of work by around 75% compared to the earlier Newcomen engine. Surely, this must have conserved coal?

Jevons wrote in his seminal work, The Coal Question, that this assumption was “wholly a confusion of ideas”. The “very contrary is the truth”.

Because Watt’s engines were dramatically cheaper to run, they proliferated across the landscape, powering textile mills, foundries, and transport. The efficiency gain lowered the effective cost of power, which unleashed new economic applications on an unprecedented scale. Instead of conservation, Britain’s total coal consumption skyrocketed, not despite the efficiency, but because of it.

Jevons saw this same dynamic in the iron industry: making iron production more coal-efficient simply led to cheaper iron, spurring massive new demand (like for railways), leading to more furnaces and higher total coal consumption. This historical pattern—where savings birthed expansion—echoed across sectors long before Jevons, such as in the 18th-century Agricultural Revolution, where efficiency spurred population growth and expanded land cultivation.

Part II: The Engine of Growth: The Rebound Effect

At its heart, the paradox is driven by the economic mechanism known as the Rebound Effect. This is the degree to which potential savings from efficiency are “taken back” by behavioral or systemic responses:

* Direct Rebound: This is the most immediate. If you buy a car that gets better fuel economy, the cost of driving per mile drops. You respond by driving more often, taking longer commutes, or choosing a weekend road trip. Studies show this effect in personal transportation typically offsets 10% to 30% of the fuel savings in developed economies.

* Indirect Rebound: If you save $300 a year on gasoline, you re-spend that money on other goods or services (like a flight for a vacation), which consumes energy in a different sector of the economy.

* Economy-Wide Rebound: This is the Jevons scale. Widespread efficiency reduces the cost of fuel or energy for all industries, lowering transportation and production costs across the board. This stimulates massive economic growth, which in turn demands more total energy across the entire system.

The Jevons Paradox, or “backfire,” occurs only when the rebound effect is greater than 100%, meaning the efficiency improvement leads to a net increase in total resource consumption. While many critics argue backfire is often overstated in regulated sectors, the existence of the partial rebound effect is robust and widely accepted.

Part III: From Coal Smoke to the Cloud

The Jevons Paradox is not confined to fossil fuels; its logic permeates modern life.

The AI and Digital Deluge

If coal was the resource of the 19th century, computation and data are the coal of the 21st. Moore’s Law has made processing power exponentially cheaper and more efficient. Yet, data center energy consumption is soaring, driven by the growth of cloud services, big data, and, most recently, Artificial Intelligence.

As new AI models become highly efficient and accessible, the response is not conservation. Instead, industries train larger, more complex models more frequently and embed AI into an ever-expanding array of products. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently observed that as AI becomes more efficient and accessible, its use will “skyrocket,” turning it into a commodity we “just can’t get enough of”. This rise in demand, fueled by efficiency, is projected to surge data center energy needs dramatically.

The Hydrological Paradox

The paradox extends to vital physical resources like water. In arid farming regions, advanced drip irrigation was heralded as a water-saving miracle, delivering water directly to roots with minimal loss. However, this efficiency gain lowered the cost of water per acre, making it profitable to convert vast tracts of arid land into cultivation, often for thirsty crops like almonds. The efficiency was reinvested into expanding the total acreage, straining finite groundwater reserves and potentially increasing overall water use—a “hydrological paradox”.

The Paradox in Our Homes

Even the introduction of hyper-efficient LED lighting has not delivered a proportional drop in energy use for illumination. Instead, the plummeting cost of light has led to an explosion of its application, enabling brighter cities, illuminated bridges, and pervasive light pollution.

Part IV: Escaping the Efficiency Trap

The lesson of Jevons is clear: relying solely on technological fixes—on engineering better gadgets or writing more efficient code—to achieve conservation is to fall into the efficiency trap. Efficiency is a necessary tool, and it often provides net societal benefits, but it is insufficient on its own to solve resource limits within a growth-oriented economic system.

To achieve genuine conservation, efficiency must be paired with strategies that deliberately break the link between technical improvement and lower effective cost. Policies that counteract the rebound effect include:

* Carbon Taxes or Green Taxes: These financial instruments counteract the cost savings from efficiency, neutralizing the economic incentive to consume more.

* Absolute Resource Caps: Setting firm, legally binding limits (like Cap-and-Trade systems or restrictions on water withdrawals from an aquifer) ensures that total consumption cannot increase, regardless of efficiency gains.

Over 150 years ago, William Stanley Jevons presented his nation with a profound choice: “between brief greatness and longer continued mediocrity”. Today, that choice is global. The Jevons paradox does not tell us progress is futile, but it forces us to ask: What is the purpose of our efficiency? Is it simply to enable us to consume more, faster, and cheaper, or can we consciously harness it to achieve a better, more sustainable quality of life within fixed ecological limits?.

That, friends, is the enduring question Jevons left for us, from the age of coal to the age of the cloud. Thanks for tuning into this companion piece for “Coordinated with Fredrik.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit frahlg.substack.com