6 Comments

Summary:

Will a potential fundamental flaw in energy efficiency technology hold back the progress society has made with more efficient appliances and systems?

Google PowerMeter Moving Closer to Smart Appliances

A lot of ink has been spilled over what some people believe is an inherent flaw in energy efficiency technology. But does the so-called energy efficiency rebound effect, also called Jevons Paradox, present a major fire or is it just blowing smoke?

Put simply, here’s how one version of the argument goes: Forecasts of savings from energy efficiency measures are overblown, because when prices go down and people start buying more efficient appliances — like air conditioners or refrigerators — they will choose devices with larger capacities and other options that will drive total consumption up. It’s a fairly simple problem to define, but notoriously complex to grasp, and could have nontrivial conclusions.

If powerful enough, the energy rebound effect could hamper an important trend in industrial, consumer and commercial energy efficiency. Between increased government mandates for energy efficiency measures and the promise of significant energy savings from energy suppliers, the developed world is becoming increasingly more efficient with its energy use.

But not everyone agrees that Jevons Paradox has any bite. The Rocky Mountain Institutes’ Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins agrees that the rebound effect exists, but says it is quite small — perhaps absurdly small. Lovins has fought arguments about the rebound effect for years, stating back in 1988:

“It is, I believe, now widely accepted to be a fallacy whose tedious repetion ill serves rational discourse and sound public policy.”

Nevertheless, the issue continues to reassert itself. David Owens, staff writer for The New Yorker describes the following scenario:

“Imagine a primitive village in which the only energy input is food and the only way to transport anything is to carry it or drag it over the ground.  Now invent the wheel. If the village were Lovinsland, [adhered to Lovin’s argument] this increase in efficiency would cause food consumption and production to fall.  In the real world, though, we know that the villagers will reinvest their sudden energy surplus, leading to a cascade of mutually reinforcing increases in consumption of all kinds.”

On the surface it seems to make sense – for the consumer, an energy efficiency improvement can function much like a decrease in price; it’s cheaper, so use more. Voila, the rebound effect.

But the limitations to this effect also seem to be common sense. Even if I have the most efficient air conditioner, I’m simply not going to keep lowering the temperature until my family is shivering. The mountains of laundry won’t get bigger necessitating more wash cycles, I’m not going to go around turning on lights in unoccupied rooms, or buy lights that are so bright that they scorch my eyes. And if I am motivated to promote environmental stewardship, then my savings could be even greater. (Let’s acknowledge the flaw in this argument; I’ll just take that extra money and go on a Hawaiian vacation, consuming even more energy!)

Robert J. Michaels recently wrote about rebounding in his Wall Street Journal article, “The Hidden Flaw of ‘Energy Efficiency.” Michaels states that:

“Rebound greatly complicates the politics of energy efficiency,” and says “[studies] have yet to account for long-term and world-wide effects of greater efficiency.”

Okay, I’ll bite. Rebounding needs to be better understood to create rational forecast scenarios that reflect true energy savings from efficiency measures. This is especially critical as demand grows as electrification becomes more widespread in the developing world.

Rational debate over energy policy is necessary, but the discussion seems to quickly devolve into acrimony rather than collaborative efforts to develop useful approaches to grapple with this issue. Why? Because the rebound paradox is contrarian to the approach of current energy efficiency policy, yet easily informed with ideological bias.

The solution is quite simple: Aggressively study the impacts of rebound effects and incorporate those understandings into climate economic models.  It’s time to move beyond theory and embrace action.

Related research

Subscriber Content

Subscriber content comes from Gigaom Research, bridging the gap between breaking news and long-tail research. Visit any of our reports to learn more and subscribe.

By Carol L. Stimmel, Research Director, Pike Research, a part of Navigant

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Related stories

  1. justinrickard Monday, August 27, 2012

    Great article Carol! Thanks for adding a rational voice to the rebound effect debate.

    Share
  2. Robin Majumdar Monday, August 27, 2012

    Sounds a bit like the Costco effect: purchase larger quantities of groceries & other commodities and then eat or drink twice as much (to celebrate the money you saved by buying in bulk)…

    Robin

    Share
  3. The conclusion of one review of the literature on the Jevons Paradox is that “some rebound is uncontested, and the lowest macroeconomic total-rebound estimates lies in the 25 to 40 percent range.” The authors are also astounded that government agencies and policy assessment companies do not correct for it. This review was done by Polimeni, Mayumi, Giampietro, and Alcott and published in their book, “The Myth of Resource Efficiency: The Jevons Paradox,” published by EarthScan in 2008.

    Of course, rebound is the result of human behavior that may, perhaps, be modified if the need to reduce consumption of energy produced from fossil sources was recognized by society to be much more important that additional comfort and convenience.

    Share
  4. “This is especially critical as demand grows as electrification becomes more widespread in the developing world.”

    This is important for a global view. I have long argued that energy demand (and in current times, demand for electricity specifically) as a function of income follows an S-shaped curve like a logistics curve. Too little income and you lack the means to make use of electricity, so demand grows more slowly than your income; too much income and demand again grows more slowly than your income (due to the satiation effect you mention). In between, demand for electricity grows faster than income. In that range, some form of Jevons paradox holds. A large part of the global population has entered the middle range, but not the upper range.

    There are more interesting ways to challenge the paradox and the effect of efficiency. There are a number of assumptions built into it besides which part of the income/demand curve is in play. For example, it assumes that there are no limits on how much electricity can be generated. I think that one is very much subject to question. Once you go there, though, you get into nonlinear systems with lots of feedback loops on different time scales (think Limits to Growth back in the 1970s, or the Ayres/Warr work more recently), and predictions get much harder.

    Share
  5. What I am suspicious about is that increasingly “energy efficient” appliances might require more industrial metals to manufacture, and those resources are more scarce than energy.

    I expect at some point we’ll reverse course and “waste energy” in order to build appliances from cheaper materials.

    Share
  6. Thank you for emphasizing two things: The critical conceptual difference between underserved markets (the village in India) and relatively saturated ones (space conditioning in the US) is one. The other is the crying need for more research into how people actually perceive and use energy services. Well done. Harvey Sachs, ACEEE.

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post