So Jevons paradox is garbage, it's neither true nor is there evidence it would be applicable here even if it was true.
Moving on.... you're playing with words, they are talking about specific flights.
At to a global level it might be a 15% reduction or maybe 18% for these specific flight routes. But they make no claim to know that figure. It's hard to know. They just are presenting facts.
And for the 2% or 5% or whatever difference to the 20%, that's people making flights that couldn't before. That's people exploring the world. That has amazing value as well. It's not just 'less than 20%'
It's impossible to tell from that argument whether total usage of the resource will be higher or lower than in the alternative universe where efficiency never increased. Usage will go up, but it might not go up enough to completely offset the efficiency gains.
> So my understanding of Jevon's Paradox is that when efficiency increases so price decreases. When price goes down then usage goes up.
No, it's the usage of the resource made efficient will be more than before, not the product.
The reason people believe it, other than annoying blogs saying it's true, is we can see as efficiencies increase price goes down and we will use the product more, so it mind hacks people about the resource
But it's really hard to ever intuitively see if the resource gets used more.
I think the original idea seems legit, it's just never been reproduced that I've ever seen. I've never seen a legit example of Jevon's Paradox outside of the original idea.
Moving on.... you're playing with words, they are talking about specific flights.
At to a global level it might be a 15% reduction or maybe 18% for these specific flight routes. But they make no claim to know that figure. It's hard to know. They just are presenting facts.
And for the 2% or 5% or whatever difference to the 20%, that's people making flights that couldn't before. That's people exploring the world. That has amazing value as well. It's not just 'less than 20%'