Rebound Effects of Energy Saving Programs !!

From the Guardian, June 3rd, 2011

*********

The news that global carbon emissions reached their highest ever level in 2010 can have surprised few people.

Against that backdrop, reducing the amount of energy consumed by households in industrialised countries is a key battleground for tackling carbon emissions. Increasingly, the British government seems to be catching on. Few streets have no provision for recycling, and the "green deal" aims to insulate millions of homes – reducing carbon emissions and (ultimately) saving householders money.

But a newly published paper in the journal Energy Policy shows that even straightforward carbon-saving activities such as home insulation are not always quite what they seem. The problem is that making one change around the house leaves the door open for other changes – which might include "rebound effects" that undermine the carbon savings. If a driver who replaces their car with a fuel-efficient model takes advantage of the cheaper running costs and drives further and more often, then the amount of carbon saved is clearly reduced.

Even worse, there are some circumstances where seemingly carbon-saving measures actually increase overall emissions – where the change backfires completely. Dr Angela Druckman and her colleagues analysed several different types of patterns of hypothetical household behaviour. Using the basic assumption that the money saved on reducing energy consumption has to be spent on something, they examined several different carbon-saving behaviours, and asked what happens next.

They found that on average, only about two-thirds of the calculated carbon reductions are likely to be achieved for typical household actions such as lowering the thermostat or reducing food waste. Money saved on the weekly food bill by reducing food waste is money available for going out for dinner at the exotic Thai restaurant on the weekend. Of course, it is possible that the money saved on the weekly food bill will be spent on an energy-efficient washing machine instead. But it is also possible that the money saved becomes an exotic Thai holiday rather than a Thai meal. In this case, the low-carbon behaviour would have backfired completely.

The message is simply that when you look across a range of actions – rather than just focusing in on one in particular – the reduction in energy consumption is often less than initial calculations suggest.

Although the authors are cautious in drawing their conclusions, the research has an obvious implication – there is no point focusing obsessively on single behavioural changes if subsequent actions undo the carbon savings initially achieved. Current government strategy is to nudge people into specific behavioural changes – but much more effective would be to engage with people at a deeper level, focusing on their personal values and social identities , which impact on a range of behaviours.

People can be nudged into making a specific change, but to adopt a low-carbon lifestyle, they need to think about it for themselves.

It is tempting to go for the quick wins – but without an opportunity for more meaningful engagement with the issue, the danger is that people will unwittingly crank up the carbon in other areas of their lives.

There is also an important lesson here about calculating carbon emissions. In just the same way that the UK cannot claim to have reduced domestic emissions if we have simply "exported" them to China, when we are totting up household carbon we have to take everything into account – not just the convenient numbers.

Climate change is not going to be solved by a series of clever campaigns that achieve specific outcomes but are blind to the scale of the challenge. It is critical that the government does not lose sight of the bigger picture when promoting low-carbon behaviour - because the danger is that even well-intended household actions will backfire.