In conservation and energy economics, the rebound effect (or take-back effect) is the reduction in expected gains from new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use, because of behavioral or other systemic responses. These responses usually tend to offset the beneficial effects of the new technology or other measures taken.
While the literature on the rebound effect generally focuses on the effect of technological improvements on energy consumption, the theory can also be applied to the use of any natural resource or other input, such as labor. The rebound effect is generally expressed as a ratio of the lost benefit compared to the expected environmental benefit when holding consumption constant.
For instance, if a 5% improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency results in only a 2% drop in fuel use, there is a 60% rebound effect (since (5-2)⁄5 = 60%). The 'missing' 3% might have been consumed by driving faster or further than before.
The existence of the rebound effect is uncontroversial. However, debate continues as to the magnitude and impact of the effect in real world situations.Depending on the magnitude of the rebound effect, there are five different rebound effect (RE) types:
In order to avoid the rebound effect, environmental economists have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be taxed in order to keep the cost of use the same.
The rebound effect was first described by William Stanley Jevons in his 1865 book The Coal Question , where he observed that the invention in Britain of a more efficient steam engine meant that the use of coal became economically viable for many new uses. This ultimately led to increased coal demand and much increased coal consumption, even as the amount of coal required for any particular use fell. According to Jevons, "It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth."
However, most contemporary authors credit Daniel Khazzoom for the re-emergence of the rebound effect in the research literature. Although Khazzoom did not use the term, he raised the idea that there is a less than one-to-one correlation between gains in energy efficiency and reductions in energy use, because of a change in the 'price content' of energy in the provision of the final consumer product.His study was based on energy efficiency gains in home appliances, but the principle applies throughout the economy. A commonly studied example is that of a more fuel-efficient car. As each kilometre of travel becomes cheaper, there will be an increase in driving speed and/or kilometres driven, as long as the price elasticity of demand for car travel is not zero. Other examples might include the growth in garden lighting after the introduction of energy-saving Light Emitting Diodes or the increasing size of houses driven partly by higher fuel efficiency in home heating technologies. If the rebound effect is larger than 100%, all gains from the increased fuel efficiency would be wiped out by increases in demand (the Jevons paradox).
Khazzoom's thesis was criticized heavily by Michael Grubband Amory Lovins who dismissed any disconnection between energy efficiency improvements in an individual market, and an economy-wide reduction in energy consumption. Developing Khazzoom's idea further, and prompting heated debate in the Energy Policy journal at that time, Len Brookes wrote of the fallacies in the energy-efficiency solution to greenhouse gas emissions. His analysis showed that any economically justified improvements in energy efficiency would in fact stimulate economic growth and increase total energy use. For improvements in energy efficiency to contribute to a reduction in economy-wide energy consumption, the improvement must come at a greater economic cost. Commenting in regard to energy efficiency advocates, he concludes that, "the present high profile of the topic seems to owe more to the current tide of green fervor than to sober consideration of the facts, and the validity and cost of solutions."
In 1992, economist Harry Saunders coined the term "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate" to describe the idea that energy efficiency gains paradoxically result in increases in energy use (the modern day equivalent of the Jevons paradox). He modeled energy efficiency gains using a variety of neoclassical growth models, and showed that the postulate is true over a wide range of assumptions. In the conclusion of his paper, Saunders stated that:
In the absence of efficiency gains, energy use will grow in lock step with economic growth (energy intensity will stay fixed) when energy prices are fixed. … Energy efficiency gains can increase energy consumption by two means: by making energy appear effectively cheaper than other inputs; and by increasing economic growth, which pulls up energy use. … These results, while by no means proving the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, call for prudent energy analysts and policy makers to pause a long moment before dismissing it.
This work provided a theoretical grounding for empirical studies and played an important role in defining the problem of the rebound effect. It also reinforced an emerging ideological divide between energy economists on the extent of the yet to be named effect. The two tightly held positions are:
Even though many studies have been undertaken in this area, neither position has yet claimed a consensus view in the academic literature. Recent studies have demonstrated that direct rebound effects are significant (about 30% for energy), but that there is not enough information about indirect effects to know whether or how often back-fire occurs. Economists tend to the first position, but most governments, businesses, and environmental groups adhere to the second. Governments and environmental groups often advocate further research into fuel efficiency and radical increases in the efficient use of energy as the primary means for reducing energy use and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (to alleviate the impacts of climate change). However, if the first position more accurately reflects economic reality, current efforts to invent fuel-efficient technologies may not much reduce energy use, and may in fact paradoxically increase oil and coal consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions, over the long run.
The full rebound effect can be distinguished into three different economic reactions to technological changes:
In the example of improved vehicle fuel efficiency, the direct effect would be the increased fuel use from more driving as driving becomes cheaper. The indirect effect would incorporate the increased consumption of other goods enabled by household cost savings from increased fuel efficiency. Since consumption of other goods increases, the embodied fuel used in the production of those goods would increase as well. Finally, the economy-wide effect would include the long-term effect of the increase in vehicle fuel efficiency on production and consumption possibilities throughout the economy, including any effects on economic growth rates.
For cost reducing resource efficiency, distinguishing between direct and indirect effects is shown in Figure 1 below. The horizontal axis shows units of consumption of the targets good (which could be for example clothes washing, and measured in terms of kilograms of clean clothes) with consumption of all other goods and services on the vertical axis. An economical technology change that enables each unit of washing to be produced with less electricity results in a reduction of the price per unit of washing. This shifts the household budget line rightwards. The result is a substitution effect because of the decreased relative price, but also an income effect due to the increased real income. The substitution effect increases consumption of washing from Q1 to QS, and the income effect from QS to Q2. The total increase in consumption of washing from Q1 to Q2 and the resulting increase in electricity consumption is the direct effect. The indirect effect comprises the increase in other consumption, from O1 to O2. The scale of each of these effects depends on the elasticity of demand for each of the goods, and the embodied resource or externality associated with each good. Indirect effects are difficult to measure empirically.In the manufacturing sector, it has been estimated that there is about a 24% rebound effect due to increases in fuel efficiency. A parallel effect will happen for cost saving efficient technologies for producers, where output and substitution effects will occur.
The rebound effect can increase the difficulty of projecting the reduction in greenhouse emissions from an improvement in energy efficiency.Estimation of the scale of direct effects on residential electricity, heating and motor fuel consumption has been common motivation for research of rebound effects. Evaluation and econometric methods are the two approaches generally employed in estimating the size of this effect. Evaluation methods rely on quasi-experimental studies and measure the before and after changes to energy consumption from the implementation of energy efficient technology, while econometric methods utilize elasticity estimates to forecast the likely effects from changes in the effective price of energy services.
Research has found that in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small to moderate, ranging from roughly 5% to 40% in residential space heating and cooling.Some of the direct rebound effect can be attributed to consumers who were previously unable to use a service. However, the rebound effect may be more significant in the context of the undeveloped markets in developing economies.
For conservation measures, indirect effects closely approximate the total economy-wide effect. Conservation measures constitute a change in consumption patterns away from particular targeted goods towards other goods. Figure 2 shows that a change in preference of a household results in a new consumption pattern that has less of the target good (QT to QT'), and more of all other goods (QO to QO'). The resource consumption or externalities embodied in this other consumption is the indirect effect.
Although a persuasive view has prevailed that indirect effects with respect to energy and greenhouse emissions should be very small due to energy directly comprising only a small component of household expenditure, this view is gradually being eroded.Many recent studies based on life-cycle analysis show the energy consumed indirectly by households is often higher than consumed directly through electricity, gas, and motor fuel, and is a growing proportion. This is evident in the results of recent studies that indicate indirect effects from household conservation can range from 10% to 200% depending on the scenario, with higher indirect rebounds from diet changes aiming to reduce food miles.
Even if the direct and indirect rebound effects add up to less than 100%, technological improvements that increase efficiency may still result in economy-wide effects that results in increased resource use for the economy as a whole. In particular, this would happen if increased resource efficiency enables an expansion of production in the economy, and an increase in the rate of economic growth. For example, for the case of energy use, more efficient technology is equivalent to a lower price for energy resources. It is well known that changes in energy costs have a large impact on economic growth rates. In the 1970s, sharp increases in petroleum prices led to stagflation (recession and inflation) in the developed countries, whereas in the 1990s lower petroleum prices contributed to higher economic growth. An improvement in energy efficiency has the same effect as lower fuel prices, and leads to faster economic growth. Economists generally believe that especially for the case of energy use, more efficient technologies will lead to increased use, because of this growth effect.
To model the scale of this effect, economists use computational general equilibrium (CGE) models. While CGE methodology is by no means perfect, results indicate that economy-wide rebound effects are likely to be very high, with estimates above 100% being rather common.One simple CGE model has been made available online for use by economists.
Research has shown that the direct rebound effects for energy services is lower at high income levels, due to less price sensitivity. Studies have found that own-price elasticity of gas consumption by UK households was two times greater for households in the lowest income decile when compared to the highest decile. Studies have also observed higher rebounds in low-income houses for improvements in heating technology.Evaluation methods have also been used to assess the scale of rebound effects from efficient heating installations in lower income homes in the United Kingdom. This research found that direct effects are close to 100% in many cases. High income households in developed countries are likely to set the temperature at the optimum comfort level, regardless of the cost – therefore any cost reduction does not result in increased heating, for it was already optimal. But low-income households are more price sensitive, and have made thermal sacrifices due to the cost of heating. In this case, a high direct rebound is likely. This analogy can be extended to most household energy consumption.
The size of the rebound effect is likely to be higher in developing countries according to macro-level assessmentsand case studies. One case study was undertaken in rural India to evaluate the impact of an alternative energy scheme. Households were given solar powered lighting in an attempt to reduce the use of kerosene for lighting to zero except for seasons with insufficient sunshine. The scheme was also designed to encourage a future willingness to pay for efficient lighting. The results were surprising, with high direct rebounds between 50 and 80%, and total direct and indirect rebound above 100%. Because the new lighting source was essentially zero cost, operating hours for lighting went up from an average of 2 to 6 per day, with new lighting consisting of a combination of both the no-cost solar lamps and also kerosene lamps. Also, more cooking was undertaken which enabled an increased trade of food with neighboring villages.
The individual opportunity of cost is an often overlooked cause of the rebound effect. Just as improved workplace tools result in an increased expectation of productivity, so does the increased availability of time result in an increase in demand for a service.Research articles often examine increasingly convenient and more rapid modes of transportation to determine the rebound effect in energy demand. Because time cost forms a major part of the total cost of commuter transport, rapid modes will reduce real costs, but will also encourage longer commuting distances which will in turn increase energy consumption. While important, it is almost impossible to estimate empirically the scale of such effects due to the subjective nature of the value of time. Time saved can either be used towards additional work or leisure which may have differing degrees of rebound effect. Labor time saved at work due to the increased labour productivity is likely to be spent on further labor time at higher productive rates. For leisure time saving, this may simply encourage people to diversify their leisure interests to fill their generally fixed period of leisure time.
In order to ensure that efficiency enhancing technological improvements actually reduce fuel use, the ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees have suggested that any cost savings from efficiency gains be "taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in natural capital rehabilitation."This can be achieved through, for example, the imposition of a green tax, a cap and trade program, higher fuel taxes or the proposed "restore" approach where part of the savings is directed back to the resource. Policies can also directly address projected yearly consumption of energy rather than device efficiency, especially for systems where the use can be accurately projected, such as street lighting.
I = PAT is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment.
Uneconomic growth, in human development theory, welfare economics, and some forms of ecological economics, is economic growth that reflects or creates a decline in the quality of life. The concept is attributed to leading ecological economist and steady-state theorist Herman Daly, though other theorists can also be credited for the incipient idea. Note Uneconomic growth should not be confused with economic degrowth, the reduction of the size of the economy to increase well-being and sustainability.
Energy conservation is the effort made to reduce the consumption of energy by using less of an energy service. This can be achieved either by using energy more efficiently or by reducing the amount of service used. Energy conservation is a part of the concept of Eco-sufficiency. Energy conservation reduces the need for energy services and can result in increased environmental quality, national security, personal financial security and higher savings. It is at the top of the sustainable energy hierarchy. It also lowers energy costs by preventing future resource depletion.
In economics, the Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, but the rate of consumption of that resource rises due to increasing demand. The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in environmental economics. However, governments and environmentalists generally assume that efficiency gains will lower resource consumption, ignoring the possibility of the paradox arising.
Energy intensity is a measure of the energy inefficiency of an economy. It is calculated as units of energy per unit of GDP.
Eco-sufficiency, or simply sufficiency, refers to the concept or strategy to reduce the environmental footprint of modern societies. The term was popularised by authors such as Thomas Princen, a professor at MIT, in his 2005 book ‘The Logic of Sufficiency’. As a goal, sufficiency is about ensuring that all humans can live a good life without overshooting the ecological limits of the Earth, while at the same time defining what that good life may consist of. Princen argues that ‘seeking enough when more is possible is both intuitive and rational - personally, organizationally and ecologically. And under global ecological constraint, it is ethical.
Energy poverty is lack of access to modern energy services. It refers to the situation of large numbers of people in developing countries and some people in developed countries whose well-being is negatively affected by very low consumption of energy, use of dirty or polluting fuels, and excessive time spent collecting fuel to meet basic needs. It is inversely related to access to modern energy services, although improving access is only one factor in efforts to reduce energy poverty. Energy poverty is distinct from fuel poverty, which focuses solely on the issue of affordability.
A low-carbon economy (LCE), low-fossil-fuel economy (LFFE), or decarbonised economy is an economy based on low carbon power sources that therefore has a minimal output of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere, but specifically refers to the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. GHG emissions due to anthropogenic (human) activity are the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century. Continued emission of greenhouse gases may cause long-lasting changes around the world, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.
Energy independence is independence or autarky regarding energy resources, energy supply and/or energy generation by the energy industry.
Efficient energy use, sometimes simply called energy efficiency, is the goal to reduce the amount of energy required to provide products and services. For example, insulating a home allows a building to use less heating and cooling energy to achieve and maintain a comfortable temperature. Installing LED lighting, fluorescent lighting, or natural skylight windows reduces the amount of energy required to attain the same level of illumination compared to using traditional incandescent light bulbs. Improvements in energy efficiency are generally achieved by adopting a more efficient technology or production process or by application of commonly accepted methods to reduce energy losses.
In the 1980s, the economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes independently put forward ideas about energy consumption and behavior that argue that increased energy efficiency paradoxically tends to lead to increased energy consumption. In 1992, the US economist Harry Saunders dubbed this hypothesis the Khazzoom–Brookes postulate, and showed that it was true under neo-classical growth theory over a wide range of assumptions.
The Rosenfeld Effect is not a scientific phenomenon, but an empirical fact that electricity use per capita in California (CA) had been almost flat from 1973 to 2006, whereas use in the United States has risen 50%. The effect is attributed to energy efficiency, a cause pioneered by Arthur H. Rosenfeld. Up until 2010 Dr. Rosenfeld was the commissioner and a very prominent member of the California Energy Commission board and presided over the Research, Development, and Demonstration Committee; the Dynamic Pricing Committee; and the Energy Efficiency Committee, whose main purposes are to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to support cutting edge research and, to look towards developing renewable energy sources.
The United States is the second-largest single consumer of energy in the world. The U.S. Department of Energy categorizes national energy use in four broad sectors: transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial.
The Energy efficiency implementation industry branch comprises firms which retrofit or replace inefficient equipment with more efficient parts or equipment, with the goal of reducing energy consumption. Retrofitting enhances existing equipment by making it expend less energy, complete replacement of equipment may be more costly, but can reduce the implementation complexity. The common goal is to save kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt hours (kWh). The difference between these two measurements is that one is a power rating (kW) and the other is a measurement of energy actually consumed (kWh).
The Energy efficiency in Europe study is part of the Odyssee project. It aims to monitor energy efficiency progress and CO2-reduction for the EU-28 countries and Norway, understand the energy demand trends for European countries, compare the countries in their relative [energy efficiency performance, as well as to benchmark values, measuring the contribution of innovative energy efficiency and renewables technologies to the Lisbon targets to make Europe more competitive and analyse and evaluate the performance of energy efficiency policies in the different EU Member States and at EU level.
Energy efficiency gap refers to the improvement potential of energy efficiency or the difference between the cost-minimizing level of energy efficiency and the level of energy efficiency actually realized. It has attracted considerable attention among energy policy analysts, because its existence suggests that society has forgone cost-effective investments in energy efficiency, even though they could significantly reduce energy consumption at low cost. This term was first "coined" by Eric Hirst and Marilyn Brown in a paper entitled "Closing the Efficiency Gap: Barriers to the Efficient Use of Energy" in 1990.
John A. "Skip" Laitner is an American-born economist, author and lecturer. He focuses on developing a more robust technology and behavioral characterization of energy efficiency resources for use in energy and climate economic policy models.
Climate change has worsened at the hands of human activity for centuries, and many scientific efforts have been made since the first political acknowledgment. In order to avoid the ongoing and potential impacts of climate change, mitigation technologies have been developed in order to adapt to the issue, each invention belonging to one of four specific groups of effort. These groups include energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy (RE), nuclear power/energy (NE), and carbon capture storage (CCS). However, concerns regarding mitigating and adapting to climate change commonly have a priority focus on the groups of carbon capture storage and renewable energy efforts.
The Garrett Relation postulates that there exists a fixed relationship between the world inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product, accumulated over all of history, and the current rate of global energy consumption. It was first identified in 2009 in a study of the forces controlling the evolution of world carbon dioxide emissions.