Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households

TLDR: In this article, the authors highlight the importance of shifting consumption to lower GHG intensive categories and investing in low carbon investments and estimate that the rebound effect for a combination of three abatement actions by UK households is approximately 34%.

About: This article is published in Energy Policy.The article was published on 2011-06-01 and is currently open access. It has received 308 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Rebound effect (conservation) & Consumption (economics).

Figures

Figure 4. Rebound effect in ELESA’s low, high and reference scenarios (2015)

Table 1: Real household disposable income growth rate assumptions in ELESA Scenarios (2015)

Table 2: Real price growth rate assumptions in ELESA Scenarios (2015)

Figure 1. Average annual UK household in ELESA’s reference scenario (2015) (a) Expenditure and investment (b) GHG emissions (c) GHG intensities

Figure 2 shows that the estimated rebound effect is lowest (7%) for reducing the household thermostat, and highest (59%) for reducing food waste. The higher rebound for food is expected as expenditure on food is relatively less GHG intensive than expenditure on household fuels and personal transport fuels, and therefore the re-spend/investment of the avoided expenditure will be relatively more GHG intensive. Where all three GHG abatement actions are assumed to be carried out in combination, the rebound is estimated to be 34%.

Figure 2 shows that the estimated rebound effect is lowest (7%) for reducing the household thermostat, and highest (59%) for reducing food waste. The higher rebound for food is expected as expenditure on food is relatively less GHG intensive than expenditure on household fuels and personal transport fuels, and therefore the re-spend/investment of the avoided expenditure will be relatively more GHG intensive. Where all three GHG abatement actions are assumed to be carried out in combination, the rebound is estimated to be 34%.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Missing carbon reductions? exploring rebound and backfire effects in uk households" ?

In this paper the authors estimate the extent of the Rebound Effect under a range of assumptions concerning consumer purchasing decisions, with varying prices, incomes, and savings levels. The paper concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of their findings and provides guidance on the conditions under which Rebound and Backfire can be minimised. 

Q2. What can be done to reduce energy use in the home?

Household energy reduction Many household actions, such as switching off lights in unoccupied rooms, can reduce energy use through simple behavioural changes. 

Q3. What is the time to write a paper on rebound effects?

The quantification of rebound effects is difficult, owing to limited data, endogenous variables, uncertain causal relationships, trans-boundary effects and other factors (Sorrell 2007). 

Q4. What is the funding source for this research?

The research is supported by funding from the ESRC Research Group on Lifestyles Values and Environment (RESOLVE) (Grant Number RES-152-25-1004) and by funding from the Defra/ESRC/Scottish Government Sustainable Lifestyles Research Group. 

Q5. What is the general case for estimating the rebound effect?

In this paper the authors have focused on the indirect rebound effect since direct rebound is less likely in the particular abatement actions the authors are considering. 

Q6. What is the second method used to estimate embedded emissions?

To do this, the estimation of embedded emissions is carried out using a Quasi-Multi-Regional Input-Output (QMRIO) model incorporated within SELMA. 

Q7. What is the common way to estimate rebound effects?

While rebound effects are most commonly estimated in relation to energy consumption, they may equally be estimated for carbon emissions or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.