New Consumers: Immigration, by Vaclav Smil

There are very few studies to date that I am aware of dicret rebound effects (e.g. the micro-scale rebounds at the level of individual households), compared to the relatively plentiful studies of dicret rebound in developed countries. Two I am aware of are below:E.O. Zein-Elabdin. Improved stoves in Sub-Saharan Africa: the case of the Sudan, Energy Economics, 19(4): 465-475. 1997Joyashree Roy. The rebound effect: some empirical evidence from India, Energy Policy, 28(6-7): 433-438. 2000.Roy 2000 looks at the impact of free distribution of solar lamps to Indian rural villages. Zein-Elabdin 1997 does look specifically at rebound from improvements in biomass (charcoal) cooking stoves in the Sudan. It finds dicret rebound of 42%, meaning that if the efficiency of charcoal-burning stoves doubles in efficiency, rather than save 50% of energy consumption, energy consumption would only fall 50%*(1-42%) = 29%. That's not a bad thing though from a development perspective, because what it means is a house that now uses its more efficient stove to get more welfare out of it. Assume the following:A standard stove provides 100 units of welfare by burning fuel at an efficiency of 1 unit of welfare per unit of fuel. The household thus consumes 100 units of fuel.If we double the efficiency of the stove, so it now gets 2 units of welfare for each unit of fuel, the standard assumption is that this cuts household fuel consumption to 50 units, while still providing 100 units of welfare.In reality, the cost of producing each unit of welfare is now lower, and since the household wants more welfare and until now they've been too poor to get all the welfare out of the stove they want, they're going to use the stove more to get more welfare now that they can afford it. That's the dicret rebound effect. If its 42% for charcoal stoves in Sudan, as the Zein-Elabdin (1997) study finds, then what would happen is this: the household would use the stove 42% more, getting 142 units of welfare from the stove. At the newer efficiency of 2 units of welfare per unit of fuel, they'd now consume 71 units of fuel, not 50, eroding 42% of the expected reduction in energy demand of 50 units of fuel (total energy consumption falls from 100 units to 71 units rather than 50 units). The household's welfare improves, their fuel use still drops, though not in half. Good news still from a developmental perspective, just not as good from a climate perspective as we might have initially thought. The greenhouse gas impact of charcoal harvest, production and consumption doesn't fall by 50% when the efficiency of the stoves doubles, by rather falls by a more modest 29%.Make sense? Sorry for the long-winded explanation! Jesse JenkinsBreakthrough Institute

The drug war wastes more money, takes more ppeole out of the workplace -hence wasting more money- etc etc you've heard the arguments.. It IS without a doubt one of the top things that must be addressed for us to fix the budget and government growing beyond it's means. It might even help the war angle seeing as how many wars today are fueled by an illegal drug trade. Were those drugs legal, the ones going to war with the money made from selling them would have to find other means.

Buenos dedas Sebas, te consulto por la deucdcif3n por esposa. Cual es el sueldo anual neto me1ximo que debe tener mi esposa para poder incluirla en mis deucdciones. Tambie9n te consulto para un amigo, quiere saber si esta deucdcif3n es solo por esposa o si se puede realizar con el certificado de convivencia de tribunales.Muchas gracias.