Modelling lifestyle effects on energy demand and related emissions

Weber, Christoph; Perrels, Adriaan

doi:10.1016/s0301-4215(00)00040-9

Cited by 261 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This view is gradually being eroded. Many recent studies based on life-cycle analysis (LCA) show thatthe amount of energy consumed indirectly by households is often higher than energy consumed directly through electricity, gas, and motor fuel, and is a growing proportion (Vringer and Blok, 1995;Lenzen, 1998a;Vringer and Blok, 2000;Weber and Perrels, 2000;Reinders et al, 2003;Lenzen et al, 2004;Vringer et al, 2007). These facts point to indirect effects becoming more significant than direct effects over time and with increasing incomes.…”

Section: Evidence Ofthe Indirect Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Remarkable Environmental Rebound Effect of Electric Cars: A Microeconomic Approach

Vivanco

Freire‐González

Kemp

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of the thesis is to seek insights into the theory, and provide empirical evidence of rebound effects. Rebound effects reduce the environmental benefits of environmental policies and household behaviour changes. In particular, win-win demand side measures, in the form of energy efficiency and household consumption pattern changes, are seen as ways for households and businesses to save money and the environment. However, these savings have environmental impacts when spent, which are known as rebound effects. This is an area that has been widely neglected by policy makers.This work extends the rebound effect literature in three important ways, (1) it incorporates the potential for variation of rebound effects with household income level, (2) it enables the isolation of direct and indirect effects for cases of energy efficient technology adoption, and examines the relationship between these two component effects, and (3) it expands the scope of rebound effect analysis to include government taxes and subsidies. MACROBUTTON HTMLDirectUsing a case study approach it is found that the rebound effect from household consumption pattern changes targeted at electricity is between 5 and 10%. For consumption pattern changes with reduced vehicle fuel use, the rebound effect is in the order of 20 to 30%. Higher income households in general are found to have a lower total rebound effect; however the indirect effect becomes relatively more significant at higher household income levels. In the win-lose case of domestic photovoltaic electricity generation, it is demonstrated that negative rebound effects can occur, which can potentially amplify the environmental benefits of this action.The rebound effect from a carbon tax, which occurs due to the re-spending of raised revenues, was found to be in the range of 11-32%. Taxes and transfers between households of different income levels also have environmental implications. For example, a more progressive tax structure, with increased low income welfare payments is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions. Subsidies aimed at encouraging environmentally friendly consumption habits are also subject to rebound effects, as they constitute a substitution of government expenditure for household expenditure. For policy makers, these findings point to the need to incorporate rebound effects in the environmental policy evaluation process.' KeywordsRebound effect, demand side management, direct rebound effect, indirect rebound effect, greenhouse gas emissions, CO 2 , household consumption patterns, efficiency, energy, conservation, natural resources. The energy and emissions produced at other stages of the production chain outside of the household scope. vi List of Tables and +/-is efficiency net effect minus the conservation net effect with negative values in parentheses). 66 Table 5.5: Rebound effects at mean and median total expenditure levels for separated fuel efficiency case (indirect reduction is the efficiency indirect rebound minus the conservation indir...

show abstract

Section: Evidence Ofthe Indirect Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Remarkable Environmental Rebound Effect of Electric Cars: A Microeconomic Approach

Vivanco

Freire‐González

Kemp

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Allcott [4] examines consumer behaviour and electricity consumption in Minnesota, USA and highlights the importance that non-price nudges such as information, attention, and social norms have on consumer behaviour. Another example is Weber and Perrels [5] who attempt to analyse economic and noneconomic factors by introducing household lifestyles into their consumer demand model for energy consumption in West Germany, France, and the Netherlands.…”

Section: {Figures 1 To 3 About Here}mentioning

confidence: 99%

What drives the change in UK household energy expenditure and associated CO2 emissions? Implication and forecast to 2020

Chitnis

Hunt

2012

Applied Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the amount of direct and indirect CO2 emissions attributable to UK households, policy makers need a good understanding of the structure of household energy expenditure and the impact of both economic and non-economic factors when considering policies to reduce future emissions. To help achieve this, the Structural Time Series Model is used here to estimate UK 'transport' and 'housing' energy expenditure equations for 1964-2009. This allows for the estimation of a stochastic trend to measure the underlying energy expenditure trend and hence capture the non-trivial impact of 'non-economic factors' on household 'transport' and 'housing' energy expenditure; as well as the impact of the traditional 'economic factors' of income and price. The estimated equations are used to show that given current expectations, CO2 attributable to 'transport' and 'housing' expenditures will not fall by 29% (or 40%) in 2020 compared to 1990, and is therefore not consistent with the latest UK total CO2 reduction target. Hence, the message for policy makers is that in addition to economic incentives such as taxes, which might be needed to help restrain future energy expenditure, other policies that attempt to influence lifestyles and behaviours also need to be considered.

show abstract

“…This view is gradually being eroded. Recent studies utilising lifecycle assessment (LCA) of embodied GHG emissions show that the amount of energy consumed indirectly by households is often higher than energy consumed directly through electricity, gas, and motor fuel, and is a growing proportion Blok, 1995, 2000;Vringer et al, 2007;Lenzen, 1998;Lenzen et al, 2004;Weber and Perrels, 2000;Reinders et al, 2003) Few studies explicitly or implicitly estimate the magnitude of the indirect rebound effect (Chalkley et al, 2001; Lenzen and Dey, 2002;Alfredsson, 2004;Brannlund et al, 2007;Mizobuchi, 2008;Druckman et al, 2011). Since the rebound effect is expressed in terms of a particular resource or externality, estimates of the indirect effect require an estimate of the embodied resources in household consumption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What if consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions

Murray

2013

Energy Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modelling lifestyle effects on energy demand and related emissions

Cited by 261 publications

References 4 publications

The Remarkable Environmental Rebound Effect of Electric Cars: A Microeconomic Approach

The Remarkable Environmental Rebound Effect of Electric Cars: A Microeconomic Approach

What drives the change in UK household energy expenditure and associated CO2 emissions? Implication and forecast to 2020

What if consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About