sure. Mitigating the Jevons paradox
requires creative approaches that may
include substitution of goods by services and dematerialization, for example,
by virtualization. 11 Such changes have
the potential to entail a drop in absolute consumption, although so far,
most approaches have tended to focus
on increasing efficiency, which may or
may not result in absolute reductions. 13
However, there is scope for significant
change; for example, the energy costs
of a virtual meeting that transmits
data to a large number of remote participants is tiny compared to the energy cost of a single airplane trip for a
single participant. The energy needed
for data transmission is decreasing at a
fast pace, unlike the energy costs of air
travel. Aslan et. al. 2 estimate that data
transmission costs decrease by 50% every two years.
Accounting for resource use must
be done thoughtfully, with long-term
goals in mind, in view of the big picture. There is justification for spending resources during a time of relative
abundance to prepare for a future of
scarcity. 12 Not all investments need to
pay off immediately. There is a place
for experimenting when we don’t know
for sure if savings will be accrued. But
such experimentation should fail fast,
and have a plausible hope of saving resources. In this regard, we need to be
cognizant of the power of capital markets in deciding what is a success and
what is a failure. While markets are
very good at optimizing the delivery of
the goods and services that they incentivize, they tend not to be organized in
such a way that promotes long-term
returns or incorporates the costs of the
externalities that push limits. Structural changes such as cap-and trade markets, taxes, fees, rationing, and quotas
are needed, in concert with technological changes, to address these issues.
Another key approach involves
finding energy savings through disin-
termediation, that is, the process of le-
veraging technology to supplant “mid-
dleman” actors in resource chains. 25
Traditionally, in the absence of infor-
mation technology, such middlemen
provided value and extracted costs
by creating markets and distribution
centers for goods. For example, sys-
tems to directly connect small-scale
worker/producer owned facilities
Such a re-arrangement certainly went
against existing building codes, but
recognized the low cost of alleviating
some resource deprivation in exchange
for neighborhood stability.
A case study such as this can be generative by revealing opportunities for
developed and less developed regions
to transfer technologies and schemes
of sociotechnical organization that
present a different set of economic incentives for actors. Being aware of the
wide diversity of current and future
potential contexts in which humans
may find themselves, more than a few
of which are characterized by scarcity,
may help computing researchers and
practitioners design technology that
promotes global well-being.
Several other LIMITS-relevant papers have focused on aspects of this
principle, including work found in
Refs. 4, 14, 29, 30, 40
Reduce energy and material consumption. Sticking to the dominant narrative
of growth is riskier than just making a
bad guess. It is dangerous because it
creates a possibility that we will reach a
point at which resources have precipitously dwindled and we may not have
enough remaining resources to make
the necessary corrections to avert catastrophic outcomes. Therefore, it is
important to acknowledge that computing uses energy and material resources. If, as we have argued, these resources are declining, a threshold that
LIMITS research should meet is that it
is worth the resources it consumes. Put
another way, LIMITS research, once
applied, should reduce energy expenditures and material consumption.
This reduction is difficult to assess, but
not something we can sidestep.
More broadly speaking, attempts to
limit resource usage in any human system are notoriously challenging. Most
of us are well aware of the problems of
CO2 emissions, but less aware of more
subtle dynamics such as the Jevons
paradox, that is, that more efficient
technologies often encourage greater
use of a resource, reducing or eliminating savings. A more efficient gas engine
may reduce fuel consumption by half,
but stimulate more than twice as much
driving (as well as more cars). A more
efficient cryptocurrency mining chip
effectively increases electricity consumption through competitive pres-
LIMITS research,
once applied, should
reduce energy
expenditures
and material
consumption.
This reduction is
difficult to assess,
but not something
we can sidestep.