share
On the rebound…
Posted by ed in blog June 16, 2011The rather lovely and brilliant Dr Paula Owen came into see us this week to provoke us with her considered thoughts and insights on ‘The Rebound Effect’. No, not the relationship thing where you leap swiftly into bed with someone highly inappropriate in the aftermath of a break-up…but the phenomenon by which consumption of a resource (usually energy) unexpectedly increases despite improvements in efficiency of use.
Now I’m not sure which you’re most interested in, and the Daily Mash had an entertaining angle on this this week with the hilarious headline ‘Schools to teach celebrity romance instead of climate change’, but being Futerrans we were obviously intrigued by the latter. Not least because whilst we have massively increased energy efficiency since the 1970’s during that period our energy consumption has actually doubled.
Of course the Rebound Effect is not a new thing. Way back in the 19th century William Jevon described his eponymous paradox to explain why increases in efficiency of coal use actually accelerated coal consumption. This was because the efficiency improvements increased the availability of coal, thus depressing it’s price and encouraging greater combustive profligacy…
Jevon’s work was reinforced in the 1980’s by the spectacularly titled ‘Khazoom-Brooke’s Postulate’ who to my mind sound more like an experimental new-wave electro-pop ensemble than leading commentators on energy use. But maybe that’s just me?
Anyway, having been involved in a major piece of EU research on the Rebound Effect Paula took us through the four basic types:
1.Direct rebound: As described above increases in resource use efficiency do not reduce overall rate of use. Also known as ‘comfort-taking’ or ‘take-back’ whereby if you spend £1000/year heating your house to 18 degrees for 6 hours a day, then insulate your loft and cavity walls to cut your bill to £500, the direct rebound suggests instead of enjoying a halved bill you’ll spend the same and consume the same resources. You’ll simply heat your house much more and enjoy yourself by wandering around in just your pants.
2.Indirect rebound: You take the £500 savings as above and leap metaphorically into bed with Michael O’Leary (the Rebound Effect in both senses!) and twang yourself off abroad for a mini-break with (ForC)Ryann(outloud)Air. Arguably increasing your carbon footprint dramatically (and feeling slightly dirty to boot).
3.Economy wide rebound: Is when in the big, long-term national picture we see a macro combination of direct and indirect rebounds causing big shifts in emissions.
4.Psychological or Mental rebound: When people ‘do something green’, like buying recycled paper or low energy lightbulbs, but then don’t print both sides/reuse/recycle it or leave the lights on the whole time because they’ve ‘done their bit’. A classic trade-off can then ensue whereby the purchase of a compact fluorescent bulb or two justifies and rationalizes leaping into bed with Michael O’Leary AGAIN (apologies if this creates a disturbing mental picture for some readers)
So is the Rebound Effect a real and genuine concern that fundamentally undermines the case for efficiency as many climate deniers and sceptics would have us believe? Or is it a red herring? According to Paula the truth is somewhere inbetween depending on which resource, which industry and even which country and cultural context.
And what lessons can we learn from this research into the risk of rebound and the implications it might have for sustainability communicators and activists? Well…
•Technology alone is not the answer. Kit is not going to keep us all out of the shit. It’s got a key role to play but it ain’t a panacea.
•Rebound reinforces the importance of behaviour change, we have to do things differently not expect some seamless, below the radar transformation to occur.
•A holistic approach is required. Bit of a familiar mantra this one, but it’s clear that a clever mixture of pricing signals and incentives, dramatic energy efficiency AND behaviour change could deliver BIG shifts. But in isolation all are likely to fail.
•Absolute carbon limits are the only definite way to ensure a reduction in emissions. That old political wraith of Personal Carbon Allowances rears it’s ugly head again.
Of course, the rebound effect has been exacerbated by kak-handed commercial communications as the now infamous Tesco ‘Lights into flights’ advert so ineptly proved. But we can take some heart from the fact that there is now emerging evidence for a ‘negative’ rebound effect – which ironically is…er…positive!
In the food industry increasing standards of food production, animal welfare, less intensive agriculture and use of organic and permacultural systems are increasing costs. But as a consequence this is driving efficiency and reducing waste. So it seems the price mechanism is good for alleviating the rebound effect.
This has major implications for the energy sector as a whole. As we decarbonize our grid, ramp up renewables and insulate and refurbish 20M homes there are going to be costs to be paid. Basically energy is going to get a whole lot pricier, and in this context Energy Minister Chris Huhne’s encouragement of consumers to ‘shop around and punish’ energy companies looks at best misleading and at worst dishonest.
Still, I piously only had half an apple for breakfast this morning so now I’m going to have me a big, fat juicy steak for lunch and give my old buddy Michael a call to see what he’s up to tonight…
leave a comment
12:12
Good bullet points on the rebound effect! Just in case you’re in need of any more glibness on the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, your friendly neighbourhood Ecometricans have a recently-released comic (and accompanying technical paper) on this very subject…Â http://www.ecometrica.co.uk/ec…
12:52
Price mechanism may be good for alleviating the rebound effect but it’s rubbish at persuading people on low incomes that all this environmental protection lark is worth it! VERY regressive mechanism, unless you have strong regulation to redistribute the costs.
The ‘efficiency’ frame is an interesting one. The way it’s spoken about in sustainability circles is usually as a straightforwardly Good Thing – everyone loves efficiency, capitalists love it, business loves it, and environmentalists love it. But the straightforward way we employ the term is misleading because it doesn’t articulate WHY efficiency – what are you efficiently trying to do? It’s a similar issue with the term ‘sustainability’ – what are you trying to sustain? We need to qualify efficiency so that it doesn’t just stand for ‘exploiting the world’s resources in a more efficient way’ and ‘more efficient perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production’ – at least, not the mode we’re experiencing at the moment. It’s not going to work in the long term. Hence carbon cap being sensible solution – at least at a global scale – I’m not sure how it works at individual scale, there’s lots of issues that need ironing out there.
Especially when you consider a lot of other ‘goods’ – like working less hours, having more time for recreation and family/friends, slow food, slow travel – efficiency isn’t really the point. Enjoyment is the point – and taking time to savour the delights of life rather than work out how to do life more quickly
and productively. Which I guess leads you to Tim Jackson’s ‘Prosperity Without Growth’ argument – the most exciting idea I’ve heard for a while, it just needs some fleshing out and ‘sizzling’. But then you’ve walked right into values territory and the land of Crompton
19:40
Very interesting post, thank you.
The example of increased food prices suggests that people are finally paying a price for their food that is in some way proportional to its ecological impact. The tree hugger in my loves this – consume less, appreciate things more.
But I never have to worry about where my next meal is coming from. And the part of me that loves to travel the world, drive my car, eat meat and use new computers is hoping that increased efficiency is the way to go. I don’t want to be the type of environmentalist who wants to take away pleasures, but nor do I want to be the kind of ‘technology is the answer’ person who isn’t willing to make sacrifices.
I agree that taking a middle ground to this debate is, as always, the way to go. But in doing so it does seem relevant to ask the question – what makes us happy? When is reducing consumption going to reduce quality of life?
Do we need to fundamentally shift our values to make for a happier, more eco friendly society in which increasing efficiency doesn’t lead to a rebound effect?