文章 Articles

The paradoxes of water: efficiency

As long as people merely “rent” the resource, efficiency devices increase overall consumption, say James Workman and Montgomery Simus. Frugally conserved water is lost through new demand by the system as a whole.

Article image

The ghost of the famous economist William Stanley Jevons is disrupting China’s efforts to tackle climate change.

Jevons’ spectre first haunted hybrid vehicles. To get their extra mileage’s worth and take full advantage of their cars’ clean and fuel-efficient credentials, people began to drive farther, more often, and at higher speeds than they did before. Jevons then haunted buildings that installed compact fluorescent bulbs and “green” appliances, causing people switch on more lights and gadgets, more often, and leave them on longer or even continuously.

In short, Jevons causes frugal misers to burn more of the energy they set out to save. If you’re disciplined enough to resist Jevons and still tamp down your demand, your haunted neighbours will likely offset any such savings by simply using up your saved fuel and electricity for their needs.

Economists frequently dismiss “spiritual” forces, and try to explain human behaviour in terms of rational self-interest. New efficient devices save gas or electricity; the increased supply costs less; lower costs push up demand and foster new consumers. In some cases this “rebound effect” is so potent that it erases earlier original gains from efficient technology.

This dynamic is bad news for China’s climate mitigation and energy reduction efforts; it is even worse news for China’s climate adaptation and water security. Whether his influence is “natural” or “supernatural”, Jevons now haunts water conservation, where we lack real options.

In 1865, the (then living) 29-year-old Jevons considered the effect of British steam engines, which improved the efficiency of coal -- the finite, geopolitical, carbon-emitting economic resource of its day. Such inexpensive energy-efficient machines might actually speed up depletion, he wrote, since we then use them more. In The Coal Question, Jevons argued: “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”

Of course, we now have alternatives to coal: nuclear, wind, oil, gas, solar, geothermal and so forth. But the steam engine generated energy by consuming another valuable element that Jevons hardly considered rare. Now scarce, water has no substitute.

In the face of global scarcity, water efficiency has become a growth industry, subsidised by governments. In response to resource depletion, a relentless barrage of education, tips, incentives and technology transfers shifts water toward ever more efficient use.

The roar of a five-gallon flush [nearly 20 litres of water] is muted to dual-flush high-efficiency toilets. Shower nozzles blast less water at higher velocities. Dishwashers and front-door washing machines use less water per load. Swimming-pool covers prevent evaporation. Lawns are replaced with rock gardens or synthetic grass. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims its efficiency campaigns have helped consumers save a cumulative 46 billion gallons [roughly 175 billion litres] of water and US$343 million in water and sewer bills.

Perhaps. Or maybe just water off our back.

And perhaps agricultural water efficiency continues to take place around China.  Dirt canals become pipes, and flood irrigation is replaced by centre pivot blast sprinklers, which in turn give rise to drip irrigation applied directly to the roots of plants at night.

Perhaps, given the undisputed wonders of widgets, China can make up the 40% shortfall between global demand and supply just by using water-efficient technology.

The ghost of Jevons moans: Don’t bet on it.

There is scant evidence that conservation technology drives overall reduction of water use, consumption and demand. In fact, empirical studies at the municipal, industrial, agricultural, state and federal level suggest that, as with energy, water-efficient technologies may extend supply, lower costs and increase demand and opportunities to divert, pump and use even more water.

Saving water in your dual-flush toilet means your children can take longer showers. Uprooting your front lawn encourages your neighbour to install a pool in his back yard. A water-efficient neighborhood lets the city divert savings into a sprawling new development or beautiful fountains in the park. Multinational corporations use efficiency technology to reduce the amounts of water per unit throughout the supply chain, but that can help them to sell more overall products containing water.

Likewise, river-basin authorities in arid lands encourage their farmers to adopt drip irrigation, for “more crop per drop”. But efficiency gains do not return water to streams and aquifers. Rather, from Beijing to Shanghai to the sources of the Yangtze, Yellow and Mekong rivers, efficiencies spread irrigation deeper and farther into ever more marginal lands, letting current farmers grow more water-intense crops on more land at the exclusion of other natural and human communities competing for that water.

As interest groups grasp this dynamic, we find the odd situation of social advocates and environmentalists fighting attempts at water efficiency.

Such a perverse and undesired outcome defines the Second Paradox of Water: as long as people merely “rent” our natural liquid resource – water – efficiency devices increase overall consumption. Water that you and I frugally conserve is lost through new and collective augmented demand by the system as a whole.

One way to resolve this paradox is through a new (yet timeless) system of what might be called “H2Ownership”. If all stakeholders have clear dominion over an equal amount of water, then whatever we save from our share we can take out of the equation, to be later sold at a premium, donated to charity, or restored directly to nature.

From the Kalahari to Oman and Bali, this system has enabled traditional systems where people compete to conserve. Under a scaled-up digital version of this virtuous cycle, urban efficiency gains could be locked in and improved on, helping China to transform its escalating water scarcity into natural and equitably shared abundance.

NEXT: The paradox of monopoly


James G Workman and Montgomery F Simus are co-authors of the forthcoming book H2Ownership vs The Three Paradoxes of Water and co-founders of SmartMarkets LLC, an online, utility-based system that they say could unleash a widespread, egalitarian race to conserve water and energy in cities worldwide. Workman is also the author of Heart of Dryness: How the Last Bushmen Can Help Us Endure the Coming Age of Permanent Drought, excerpted by chinadialogue in 2010. The authors can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected].

Homepage image by Jorlo

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
anumakonda

水——没有浪费、没有缺乏!

全球背景下,每年约有190万儿童死于因不安全的饮用水、不充足的卫生设施和恶劣的卫生条件而引起的腹泻病。这是儿童死亡率的第二大原因,而第一杀手则是呼吸道感染,约占全世界儿童死亡率的15%,而18%的儿童死亡率则发生在贫困国家。儿童早期的慢性腹泻会导致食物摄入量和营养吸收的下降、营养不良、对传染疾病的免疫力下降、对身体发育和认知发展的损害,随之而来的还有对教育程度和收益的长期影响。

我们已经开发了一种简单但创新的日光消毒法工具包,用于制作安全的饮用水,仅花费US$30(6升容量),而且仅使用太阳热能和紫外线消毒。

A.Jagadeesh 博士 (美联社),印度内洛尔
邮箱: [email protected]

Water - Waste not and want not!

Globally, almost 1.9 million children die each year from diarrheal diseases caused by unsafe drinking water, inadequate sanitation facilities and poor hygiene each year. It is the second largest cause of child mortality, after respiratory infections, accounting for 15 percent of child deaths globally, and 18 percent of child deaths in the poorest countries. Chronic diarrhea in early childhood contributes to decreased food intake and nutrient absorption, malnutrition, reduced resistance to infection, and impaired physical growth and cognitive development, with long-term consequences for educational attainment and income.

We have developed a simple but innovative Solar Disinfection kit for safe drining water which just costs US$30(6 litres capacity) and only uses solar thermal and UV.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: [email protected]

Default thumb avatar Reply arrow
gaidee

对于Jagadeesh博士评论之翻译

当看到“水——不浪费者不缺乏!”(Water - Waste not and want not! )这样的标题被翻译成“水——没有浪费、没有缺乏!”时,我丝毫不想再看下去,不想这样继续折磨自己了。

Jagadeesh博士,除非你在语言上直接表达,否则你很难让自己的理念在这个重要国家得到展现。那么,最后,翻译:毫无遗漏者全然吸取。

Interpretation of Dr Jagadeesh

When the title of "Water - Waste not and want not! " has been translated into something like " Water- No Waste and No Want" here in Chinese mandarin, I really don't have the slightest interest to continue to tortune myself to finish this.

And Dr Jagadeesh, until you could make it directly in the language, perhaps it will be hard to get your idea through, in this important country. So, finally, Interpretation: Miss Not and Extract All.

Thumb original 231813.53958325 Reply arrow
shanshan.jiang

至Gaidee

Gaidee你好,感谢你指出翻译存在问题。“不浪费就不会缺乏”会是一个更好的题目。

To Gaidee

Hi Gaidee, thanks for pointing out that the interpretation could be confusing. "不浪费就不会缺乏“ should be a better title.

Default thumb avatar
gaidee

杰沃斯效应:并不恐怖

关于这个效应,实际上已经有了很多的研究,也叫做“反弹效应”。Amory Lovins对此有很好的阐述。在交通运输领域,虽然随着燃油效率的提高,人们确实会多开车,但是研究表明比例也就在2%左右,不是很大。时代在进步,也许Jervons并不总是对的。

Jervons effect: don't be scared

In fact, there have been many researches concerning this effect, which is also called "bounce-back effect". Armory Lovins has a better illustration for that: In the field of traffic and transportation, though with the increase of fuel oil efficiency people will drive more than they used to, research states that the proportion increased is not very high, only about 2%. It is an era of progress, perhaps Jervons is not always right.