J. Daniel Khazzoom

Bio: J. Daniel Khazzoom is an academic researcher from University of California, Berkeley. The author has contributed to research in topics: Economic model & Demand management. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 7 publications receiving 1094 citations.

Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency in Standards for Household Appliances

Abstract: Regulations which mandate appliance efficiency standards may be based on calculations which exaggerate the potential energy savings. Improved efficiency can, in fact, increase demand enough to be counterproductive unless the standards are applied selectively. As appliances improve, they are used more, new stock is demanded, and the demand for and use of related equipment increases. The policy implications of these empirical studies are that the indiscriminate use of mandated standards will backfire, but a mix of selective standards and reliance on prices as a restraint can be effective. 11 references, 5 figures, 2 tables. (DCK)

Energy Saving Resulting from the Adoption of More Efficient Appliances

Abstract: In last November's IAEE meetings, Amory Lovins reported estimates of energy saving that will result from the adoption of more efficient appliances. This note addresses three questions related to the subject. 1. The realism of Lovins' estimate of energy saving. 2. The way these estimates fare when juxtaposed against the price elasticity of demand used by Lovins. 3. The light my recent empirical results shed on the magnitude of energy saving we can realistically expect. In the process, the note touches on the polar opposite policies that Lovins has been advocating.

Energy Savings from More Efficient Appliances: A Rejoinder

Abstract: In his article (Lovins, 1988) responding to my Note (Khazzoom, 1987), Amory Lovins makes a series of allegations. I find they contain precious little substance. Space limitations preclude a response to each one of Lovins' points, but I will address some of the specifics. The following overall observations convey perhaps in a nutshell some of the difficulties with the article that emerge from the discussion of the specifics below: (i) The article makes statements about facts, which are not supported by the evidence; (ii) The article holds contradictory positions and makes inconsistent statements, with little or no effort at probing into their implications; (iii) A depressing aspect of the article that the serious reader has to contend with is the lack of command of the basics of economics the article reveals. There is rattling with economic terminology and there are grand-sounding statements about economics, but it is not clear the author knows quite what they all mean. I turn to these below. But I would like to clarify the procedure 1 will be following. Lovins' article is substantially made up of quotes from the unpublished work by the National Resources Defense Council. In preparing the present rejoinder, I have made the assumption that since Lovins used the quotes to elaborate on points that he made (often in two lines or less), the statements he quoted say what he would have said, had he written the elaboration in his own words. I hope this clarification will spare any future counterarguments that Lovins did not make these statements, but only quoted them.

Fuel Efficiency and Automobile Safety: Single-Vehicle Highway Fatalities for Passenger Cars

Abstract: This paper reports the results of an effort to shed some light on the relationship that might exist between enhanced standards and single-vehicle passenger car highway fatalities. Quantification of this relationship is not an easy task Not surprisingly, the literature on modeling the relationship between fuel economy and highway fatalities is very scant. Our analytic framework consists of two submodels: a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) submodel and a single-vehicle highway fatalities submodel. Some of the variables that enter the CAFE relationship affect single-vehicle fatalities, as well. The results of this study are not unequivocal in every respect. However, they indicate that enhanced standards and automobile safety need not be at odds with each other. A main message that emerges from this study is the need not to confuse car downsizing with down weighting. Quantatative studies of highway fatalities have mostly treated weight and size interchangeably, and have used only the weight variable in the fatalities equation to avoid dealing with multicollinearity. Such references as {open_quote}size/weight{close_quote} which lump size and weight together as if they were the same variable are not uncommon in the safety literature. Our study indicates that weight and size are not a proxy to each other,more » and that in single vehicle crashes they are likely to have opposite effects on safety. Men researchers choose to drop the size variable and include only the weight variable in the fatalities equation, the weight estimate may end up with a negative sign, not necessarily because weight has a beneficial effect on safety, but because the omitted size variable has a dominant beneficial effect on safety, which is picked up by the weight variable that appears in the equation. 65 refs., 7 tabs.« less

Impact of Pay-at-the-Pump on Safety Through Enhanced Vehicle Fuel Efficiency

Abstract: Pay-at-the-Pump (PATP) is a proposal for replacing the lump-sum payment of auto insurance by a system of surcharge on gasoline price. This study examines the main argument made against PATP-namely, that by stimulating the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles, PATP results in a drastic deterioration in highway safety. The study finds the evidence does not support this argument. Moreover, if as critics argue, PATP does indeed result in a substantially accelerated replacement of older vehicles with more fuel-efficient ones, the introduction of PATP may be expected to result in a substantially safer fleet of vehicles, as well.

The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Abstract: Most people think climate change and sustainability are important problems, but too few global citizens engaged in high-greenhouse-gas-emitting behavior are engaged in enough mitigating behavior to stem the increasing flow of greenhouse gases and other environmental problems. Why is that? Structural barriers such as a climate-averse infrastructure are part of the answer, but psychological barriers also impede behavioral choices that would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental sustainability. Although many individuals are engaged in some ameliorative action, most could do more, but they are hindered by seven categories of psychological barriers, or “dragons of inaction”: limited cognition about the problem, ideological worldviews that tend to preclude pro-environmental attitudes and behavior, comparisons with key other people, sunk costs and behavioral momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and positive but inadequate behavior change. Structural barriers must be removed wherever possible, but this is unlikely to be sufficient. Psychologists must work with other scientists, technical experts, and policymakers to help citizens overcome these psychological barriers.