I have commented before that Malthus didn't actually predict a Malthusian Catastrophe. In his An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it affects the Future Improvement of Society with remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers, he argued that rather than being freed to live in utopian conditions, the human population would continue to be resource-limited in bad times, self-limited in good times and that misery would result if these limits weren't effective enough. But even my high school biology textbook told me that Malthus had incorrectly predicted that we were doomed to run out of food.

Similarly, in Efficiency and Resilience: After Jevon's Paradox, the Piggy Principle, economist Marco Bertoli claims that Jevon's Paradox has been applied to consumer choices in ways that William Stanley Jevons probably never intended:
 

First of all, we should distinguish between two different economic spheres: production and consumption.

With respect to production, the proposed solutions (increases in power plants efficiency, changes to EFF1 electric motors, inverters applied to pumps and motors, improvements in the efficiency of compressed air systems, etc.) will inevitably get caught in the trap of Jevons paradox. We should also remember that industrial development comes from a long history of efficiency increases in the use of productive resources, those being either energy or labor or credit or raw materials. (‘More with less!’ is the claim.)

Resource consumption has continued to increase in the long term, in spite of acknowledged gains in efficiency and productivity. Considering that, the myth of entrepreneurs reluctant to adopt available methods to increase efficiency should be abandoned: in fact, investment in energy efficiency should be considered business as usual.

On the other side, we should also remember that Jevons paradox applies exclusively to the production sphere: the world of the so-called ‘consumer’ behaves very differently. In this regard, the economic literature is still pegged to the Consumer theory developed by economists such as Walras, Pareto and other Marginalists between the late 19th and the early 20th century. This is exactly the same theory studied in Basic Economics courses.

According to Consumer theory, individuals choose the level of commodity consumption which, considering their own income and the price requested, maximizes their own Utility.

On his Cassandra's Legacy blog, Ugo Bardi introduces his new ($50) book, Limits to Growth Revisited, in which he claims that the cautionary 1972 book was similarly misrepresented as inexorably doom-and-gloom:
 

"LTG revisited" ... tells the whole story of the LTG study: how it was conceived, what were the political reactions to it, how it was demonized and misunderstood, and what is its relevance....

... Re-examining the story of LTG opens up a whole new world that urban legends and propaganda had tried to bury under a layer of lies and misinterpretations. We all have heard of the "mistakes" that the authors of LTG, or their sponsors, the Club of Rome, are said to have made. But LTG was not "wrong": nowhere in the 1972 book you find the mistakes that are commonly attributed to it. LTG never predicted catastrophes to occur soon, never estimated that some specific mineral resources should run out by some specific date, it never contained prophecies of doom. In other words, LTG is not, and never was, "Chicken Little with a computer."

... the misunderstanding was enhanced by a media campaign very similar to the one that has been recently directed against climate science. The trick of these campaigns is always the same: find a single mistake and use it to demonize the whole concept. It doesn't matter that the mistake is real or an invention, it doesn't count whether it is relevant or not. It is enough to repeat the concept of "mistakes" a large number of times to confuse the public and cloud the issue. In recent times, the method has been used to demonize climate science with the alleged mistake found in the "hockey stick" temperature reconstruction of past climate. For LTG, the "mistake" was found in a few numbers taken from just one of the many tables of the 1972 book. There was nothing wrong in these numbers, but the concept of the "mistakes of the Club of Rome" went viral and it is still widespread, and perhaps prevalent, whenever the LTG study is mentioned today.

Though I have run across references here and there, I know very little about the Club of Rome, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bilderbergers, or the New World Order. But as if on cue, commenter Ray Songtree rants:
 

Author apparently never researched the Club of Rome. That will be completely missing in this book. Club of Rome is Rockefeller. Who paid this big think tank? Author will not mention it. This book is New World Order sanctioned and co written. Author talks of climate science, but doesn't mention chemtrails??? hmmm....

What are chemtrails?
 

I promise you this new book is NWO propaganda. TOP/DOWN management is always the bottom line. Incredibly, many progressives will read this book and not know Rockefeller and cronies were behind the whole agenda. "If you care for the planet support NWO!!!" Watch how quickly this book will be translated into many languages. Is this an individuals effort? No, it is funded, and will be promoted extensively.

Hmmm, indeed.