> Whereas if you take the extraordinarily difficult step of opening Wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox), you understand the real paradox. Jevons observed that when
steam engines get more efficient and individually use less coal, we end up deploying many more steam engines in many new industries and use cases, increasing coal consumption overall.
What difference do you see in this paragraph compared to the one before? Steam engines get more coal-efficient and that means there are more of them burning more coal. This is two observations:
- The cost of steam engines goes down, and the quantity sold goes up.
- The value of coal goes up (it produces more energy per ton), and the quantity sold goes up.
Those results are just as basic as "the cost of coal goes down, and the quantity sold goes up", which is the statement you open by criticizing. I agree there's nothing surprising about it. But there's nothing surprising about the other statements either. The paragraph two statements are both demand increases†, while paragraph 1 is a supply increase, but they all happen on the same X-shaped graph from economics 101. (Or rather, two of them happen on an X-shaped graph measuring supply and demand for coal, and one of them happens on an X-shaped graph measuring supply and demand for engines.)
† "The cost of steam engines goes down" might sound like a supply increase, but the cost that's dropping here is the operating cost and not the manufacturing cost, meaning that, at a given price, more people are willing to buy a steam engine than previously.